'concussions have become the new global warming'

but they are similar in that non-experts will attribute things to it (like Junior Seau's death) without knowing anything of the science behind it.

you'd know that he doesn't consider himself a hero.

Lot of hyperbole in the quoted article, but there is a lot of hyperbole in the Michael Rosenberg article in SI that implies that Aaron Hernandez in jail at 50 might is in a better place than if he played NFL football.

But I do consider him someone that made a choice for himself that he felt was more important then money and fame. that in itself is a rare breed, especially at this age

In comment 12203151 montanagiant said:

Quote:

But I do consider him someone that made a choice for himself that he felt was more important then money and fame. that in itself is a rare breed, especially at this age

If you can see the interview you'll see an intelligent, mature, grounded "kid".

In comment 12203151 montanagiant said:

Quote:

But I do consider him someone that made a choice for himself that he felt was more important then money and fame. that in itself is a rare breed, especially at this age

Well put.

opinion piece. Ill-informed and moronic. And anyone in the media that calls himself a patriot is a fucking loser...

Then saw where it was written. And thought, oh.

On most serious news outlets, climate change isn't seriously disputed. And then there's Fox...

Serious media? MSNBC? CNN? ABC? CBS? NBC? Hah!

...said no one, ever.

My preferred news sources, in order of seriousness:
NPR
BBC
PBS
The New York Times
All the outlets you listed, and most other "mainstream" media
Al Jazeera
The Onion
That paper the Moonies used to hand out at subway stations
The guy who sleeps in the Broadway median at 82nd Street
Fox

in an interview that there is no solid scientific evidence that concussions cause CTE. There definitely is strong coincidental observations, but no causation.

A problem is that you can't detect CTE when you're alive and if you could you might see that even non-athletes might somehow be developing it.

FWIW

Not Jon Stewart?

What an odd thing with which to take issue.

I thought the current thinking is that it may be many blows to the head as opposed to a few concussions most associated with CTE.

I didn't want to piss off Blackbeard THAT much.

and global warming. What an absurdly low IQ news outlet that is.

...that noone should play football?

I doubt it.

Terrible analogy.

and all their murky scientific data.

In comment 12203420 Glover said:

Quote:

and all their murky scientific data.

Interesting that given the choice between 'murky' and 'bogus' you chose 'murky'. :-)

What do you hear from your old hometown, Massapequa Park, the armpit of NY.

?

In comment 12203285 Big Blue Blogger said:

Quote:

My preferred news sources, in order of seriousness: NPR BBC PBS The New York Times All the outlets you listed, and most other "mainstream" media Al Jazeera The Onion That paper the Moonies used to hand out at subway stations The guy who sleeps in the Broadway median at 82nd Street Fox

BBB ... THIS ^^^^ Truer words were never spoken.

When you get hit often by great athletes weigh up to 350 lbs, it's going to have a detrimental effect on your health and life.

What a fucking shock.

In comparison rankings, 29 percent responded that they trust Fox News the most. CNN follows with 22 percent, CBS News and NBC News are at 10 percent, ABC News at 8 percent and MSNBC at 7 percent.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/fox-news-trusted-network-poll-115887.html#ixzz3VRcHeh7Q
Quinnipiac University poll - ( New Window )

In comment 12203542 giant24 said:

Quote:

In comparison rankings, 29 percent responded that they trust Fox News the most. CNN follows with 22 percent, CBS News and NBC News are at 10 percent, ABC News at 8 percent and MSNBC at 7 percent. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/fox-news-trusted-network-poll-115887.html#ixzz3VRcHeh7Q Quinnipiac University poll - ( New Window )

That's the scary part, that there are so many people that trust and believe the stuff they sell. It is really, really sad.

They are all in the entertainment business not the new business. Ergo, watching NBC News is akin to watching Sex And the City for news.

If 29% of the population say their favorite dessert is chocolate cake, but 22% prefer apple pie, 10% prefer cherry pie, 10% prefer blueberry pie, 8% prefer rhubarb pie, and 7% prefer lemon meringue pie -- for a total of 57% -- only Fox would conclude that "people like cake better than pie."

I think Fox has played too long without a helmet.

precisely dick about concussions and how to treat them.
Getting medical treatment is pretty much useless. Unless you have bleeding on the brain, a doctor isn't going to do anything for you.

It's just insane to me that it somehow rests there. I challenge anyone to watch the vice episode on the South Pole and not think something drastic isn't occurring.

In comment 12203285 Big Blue Blogger said:

Quote:

My preferred news sources, in order of seriousness: NPR BBC PBS The New York Times All the outlets you listed, and most other "mainstream" media Al Jazeera The Onion That paper the Moonies used to hand out at subway stations The guy who sleeps in the Broadway median at 82nd Street Fox

Nearly every one of those sources (excepting the Onion) shit the bed at least once over the last 15 years. Fuck that.

IMO, still the only trustworthy outlet available, no major scandals, incidents, lies, inaccuracies or incidents of literal govt propoganda tied to The Guardian.


The Guardian US - ( New Window )

In comment 12203542 giant24 said:

Quote:

In comparison rankings, 29 percent responded that they trust Fox News the most. CNN follows with 22 percent, CBS News and NBC News are at 10 percent, ABC News at 8 percent and MSNBC at 7 percent. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/fox-news-trusted-network-poll-115887.html#ixzz3VRcHeh7Q Quinnipiac University poll - ( New Window )

Yeah, most trusted, but CONSISTENTLY the LEAST ACCURATE in the majority of studies done on media accuracy.

"NPR and Sunday morning political talk shows are the most informative news outlets, while exposure to partisan sources, such as Fox News and MSNBC, has a negative impact on people’s current events knowledge."
NPR’s listeners best-informed, Fox viewers worst-informed - ( New Window )

I like Bret Baier at 6PM, but the rest is just hype. I like Brian Williams, too. But even he shot himself in the foot.

You don't get straight news anymore. I'll flip on CNN to see the headlines, but it is all pretty poor.

Opinion shows are all that is left.

Political comedy thread. I read recently that some entity is trying to make it illegal to deny global warming. Now I don't care what side of this fence you are on but seriously?

I grew up thinking that America was all about freedom! What a joke!

In comment 12203322 BobOnLI said:

Quote:

I thought the current thinking is that it may be many blows to the head as opposed to a few concussions most associated with CTE.

That's probably true. I don't remember the guy making that distinction. But the point he was making is that we have no scientific evidence that CTE is caused by concussions or blows to the head of any kind.

My common-sense, layman's guess is that getting hit on the head in any manner has to do something to the brain, and I'm sure he feels that as well. It's just that scientifically, we have no way of proving it or establishing causation of any kind.

It's a tough one.

They present a substantial amount of liberal POV on all their opinion shows, as most of their hosts have a conservative bent, these liberals are taken to task, but their opinions are expressed.

Every other media outlet puts forth the liberal spin, I find the network refreshing...yes I am a conservative....jeesh what is that like a jETS fan around here?

In comment 12204069 NewBlue said:

Quote:

They present a substantial amount of liberal POV on all their opinion shows, as most of their hosts have a conservative bent, these liberals are taken to task, but their opinions are expressed. Every other media outlet puts forth the liberal spin, I find the network refreshing...yes I am a conservative....jeesh what is that like a jETS fan around here?

As a long time reader here, I can assure you that there are both Libs and Conservs on this board, however, I have found it best in my age of wisdom not to discuss politics in public. It usually only results in pissing someone off.

That said, I agree with your comments about the media outlets. They are 100% spot on accurate.

In comment 12204069 NewBlue said:

Quote:

They present a substantial amount of liberal POV on all their opinion shows, as most of their hosts have a conservative bent, these liberals are taken to task, but their opinions are expressed. Every other media outlet puts forth the liberal spin, I find the network refreshing...yes I am a conservative....jeesh what is that like a jETS fan around here?

Don't know how this thread got milered, but as a retired guy (and a conservative leaning one) I get to watch a lot of tv daily and find that almost all news stations tilt decisively and strongly to the left -- most certainly NPR, Diane Reems (sp?) and that ilk, so much so that their news information is worthless. FOX DOES present opposing points of view on almost every issue they discuss. Always. Both sides are given the opportunity to make their case. Yes, they tilt conservatively in their news portions, but all sides are brought in to talk. Now the opinion shows at night are definitely conservative, but they're opinion shows and are clearly within the purview of advocacy. But even then, other sides are presented.

have never spent any time watching their news programs. Maybe they caught a few minutes of O'Reilly or Hannity and used that to validate their opinion. The news programming on Fox is excellent... the opinion journalism is boob bait. At least Fox draws a line between the two. Some people have their mind made up and repeat their mantra.

I'm not a big fan of opinion journalism, but we have it all over the political spectrum. It's a sad consequence of the Vietnam War... journalism has been in a slow death spiral since the 1960's.

In comment 12204170 BamaBlue said:

Quote:

have never spent any time watching their news programs. Maybe they caught a few minutes of O'Reilly or Hannity and used that to validate their opinion. The news programming on Fox is excellent... the opinion journalism is boob bait. At least Fox draws a line between the two. Some people have their mind made up and repeat their mantra. I'm not a big fan of opinion journalism, but we have it all over the political spectrum. It's a sad consequence of the Vietnam War... journalism has been in a slow death spiral since the 1960's.

For the better part of the Bush years, the only Cable News Channel I got was FOX. I had a BALL on election night 2012 watching Karl Rove refusing to accept the truth. I also used to go back and forth between Air America and Limbaugh/Hannity while driving. I've heard plenty from both sides, but FOX is the most obvious in their bias, the most misleading, trash news imaginable. Laughable, to the degree where Daily Show and Colbert made a killing mocking them.

The studies speak for themselves. ALL of the Cable News Channels LITERALLY dumb down their audiences MsNBC, CNN, but - NONE worse than FOX.

don't seem to understand that it's not the fact that the channel has a conservative bias that bothers people, but that the network routinely presents things that are demonstrably untrue as fact.

There's nothing wrong with having a bias as long as the information presented is factual. There's also nothing wrong with providing counter-factual information as long as it's not presented as "news". FNC seems to split the baby on both counts.

I saw Dr. Amen speak in CA this past weekend and he mentioned how Chris Borland came to his clinic and made the medical decision to retire.

Dr. Amen cited injury and the need to protect your brain. We were not designed to play football. Borland is constantly knocking heads and decided it wasn't worth ruining his whole life over.

Kudos to being smart.

In comment 12204260 x meadowlander said:

Quote:

In comment 12204170 BamaBlue said: Quote: have never spent any time watching their news programs. Maybe they caught a few minutes of O'Reilly or Hannity and used that to validate their opinion. The news programming on Fox is excellent... the opinion journalism is boob bait. At least Fox draws a line between the two. Some people have their mind made up and repeat their mantra. I'm not a big fan of opinion journalism, but we have it all over the political spectrum. It's a sad consequence of the Vietnam War... journalism has been in a slow death spiral since the 1960's. For the better part of the Bush years, the only Cable News Channel I got was FOX. I had a BALL on election night 2012 watching Karl Rove refusing to accept the truth. I also used to go back and forth between Air America and Limbaugh/Hannity while driving. I've heard plenty from both sides, but FOX is the most obvious in their bias, the most misleading, trash news imaginable. Laughable, to the degree where Daily Show and Colbert made a killing mocking them. The studies speak for themselves. ALL of the Cable News Channels LITERALLY dumb down their audiences MsNBC, CNN, but - NONE worse than FOX.

Since the most of the "news" is grossly left leaning, you would of course say that Fox "News" is the worst, as does the rest of the media. So as to Daily Show and Colbert, they play to their audience, which not surprisingly, is young and left leaning. They certainly aren't expecting the evangelicals to be watching.

That said, I long ago shut off Hannity and his ilk and I can agree that much of the programing on Fox is ridiculous to the point that I won't watch it, either. Just as bad right, as MSNBC is left. Unfortunately, it is the only network that doesn't kiss this President's ass. (yeah they did with "W", but nearly to the point that President Obama gets away with elsewhere)

I do like Bret Baier and the 6 PM news - which is probably the only real "news" on Fox.

Oh, and it was funny watching Rove meltdown on election night.

In comment 12204309 section125 said:

Quote:

In comment 12204260 x meadowlander said: Quote: In comment 12204170 BamaBlue said: Quote: Since the most of the "news" is grossly left leaning, you would of course say that Fox "News" is the worst, as does the rest of the media. So as to Daily Show and Colbert, they play to their audience, which not surprisingly, is young and left leaning. They certainly aren't expecting the evangelicals to be watching. That said, I long ago shut off Hannity and his ilk and I can agree that much of the programing on Fox is ridiculous to the point that I won't watch it, either. Just as bad right, as MSNBC is left. Unfortunately, it is the only network that doesn't kiss this President's ass. (yeah they did with "W", but nearly to the point that President Obama gets away with elsewhere) I do like Bret Baier and the 6 PM news - which is probably the only real "news" on Fox. Oh, and it was funny watching Rove meltdown on election night.

I'm simply talking about ACCURACY, not BIAS.

People who rely on FOX, MsNBC and CNN for their news consistently have WORSE knowledge about current events THAN PEOPLE WHO WATCH NO NEWS AT ALL.

Daily Show, Colbert, NPR, Bill O'Reilly's show consistently have the viewers with the highest current event knowledge.

US Cable News outlets have a SENSATIONALIST bias. Not a Liberal one. Don't forget, they ALL fed on Clinton's infidelity, they ALL buried Gore, they ALL supported the Iraq War, and all but MsNBC have the public completely deceived on the ACA. Yeah, they love Obama. They are BORED with policy, IGNORE the financial crisis, they have they shift their focus on a dime.

Guardian, U.S. Learn it, live it, love it.

"As that bill is enacted, it’s going to become more and more popular," Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) predicted on Meet the Press in March 2010.

"I think that [the law] over time is going to become more popular," David Axelrod, then a senior adviser to President Obama, declared in September.

Five years later, it's fair to declare that prediction dead wrong: 83 percent of Americans still hold the same opinions they did in 2010. And of those who have changed their minds, 58 percent of them have become more negative toward the law, a new Vox poll conducted by PerryUndem shows.
Obamacare is 5 years old, and Americans are still worried about death panels - ( New Window )

Nonsense. If anything there should be MORE coverage on foreign commercial airplanes crashing in the alps. I still don't know enough about how a door lock works.

for any media outlet. Is this another blurry line between opinion journalism and reporting (real journalism)? From my own experience, I could not stand the reporting during the Clinton Administration. Every news story was about the denial and lack of credibility of the accuser. That was intellectually dishonest reporting and was the reason why the Fox Network made such an immediate impact (IMHO).

I think it is very safe to say that the media is no longer a watchdog on power. Journalists have become cheerleaders for their favorite power base. We fight the (relatively) silly ideological battles to prove who's more bias (or accurate), while the Country goes to hell in a hand-basket... 'Merica.

In comment 12204284 eclipz928 said:

Quote:

don't seem to understand that it's not the fact that the channel has a conservative bias that bothers people, but that the network routinely presents things that are demonstrably untrue as fact. There's nothing wrong with having a bias as long as the information presented is factual. There's also nothing wrong with providing counter-factual information as long as it's not presented as "news". FNC seems to split the baby on both counts.

EXACTLY!!! I have always considered myself conservative and I am still a registered Republican. I was happy that a conservative major news program was airing. But c'mon, its not the bias that's disturbing its the total lack of credibility that makes them a joke. Its hard for me to believe that intelligent people don't take their "news" with a grain of salt and check out the veracity themselves. Now I will bow out 'cause I think I am on the verge of becoming too political.

In comment 12204527 River Mike said:

Quote:

In comment 12204284 eclipz928 said: Quote: don't seem to understand that it's not the fact that the channel has a conservative bias that bothers people, but that the network routinely presents things that are demonstrably untrue as fact. There's nothing wrong with having a bias as long as the information presented is factual. There's also nothing wrong with providing counter-factual information as long as it's not presented as "news". FNC seems to split the baby on both counts. EXACTLY!!! I have always considered myself conservative and I am still a registered Republican. I was happy that a conservative major news program was airing. But c'mon, its not the bias that's disturbing its the total lack of credibility that makes them a joke. Its hard for me to believe that intelligent people don't take their "news" with a grain of salt and check out the veracity themselves. Now I will bow out 'cause I think I am on the verge of becoming too political.

Who are we checking the veracity with/against? The other news outlets?

In comment 12204368 eclipz928 said:

Quote:

Nonsense. If anything there should be MORE coverage on foreign commercial airplanes crashing in the alps. I still don't know enough about how a door lock works.

There's going to be an hour long special report on this. Maybe some of your (and our) questions will be answered. I hope they address the conspiracy aspect.

The Guardian?

Clearly a left leaning publication just as the Telegraph is Right leaning.

I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
FNC presenting NEWS that is fabricated? You are talking about news vs. opinion???

In comment 12204284 eclipz928 said:

Quote:

don't seem to understand that it's not the fact that the channel has a conservative bias that bothers people, but that the network routinely presents things that are demonstrably untrue as fact. There's nothing wrong with having a bias as long as the information presented is factual. There's also nothing wrong with providing counter-factual information as long as it's not presented as "news". FNC seems to split the baby on both counts.

I'd really like to know what you've lately heard there that's demonstrably untrue as fact.

I'm serious and not trying to call you out, but it would be interesting to see what is considered a fact and what isn't.

but here is actual pew research center data on what media consumers are most knowledgeable. From 2010.

x meadowlander, this may make you puke in your mouth, haha, Rush Limbaugh listeners scored higher on actual knowledge of current political affairs than npr listeners. And shockingly, Hannity listeners are higher than most on MSNBC.

(I don't listen to any of these idiots. I like my life far to much to listen to any of this bullshit or anything like it.)

* * *

Knowledge of Politics and Current Events

Asked a series of four questions to test their knowledge about politics and current events, just 14% of the public got all four correct – as many got all four wrong (15%). Two-in-ten got three correct, 26% two and 25% one. Regular readers, viewers or listeners of most media sources outscored the general public.

People were asked which party currently controls the House of Representatives (Democrats), to identify the post held by Eric Holder (U.S. attorney general), which company is run by Steve Jobs (Apple) and which country has an active volcano that disrupted international air travel earlier this year (Iceland).

Wall Street Journal readers fared the best on the quiz—51% of regular Journal readers got all four questions right; just 3% got none right. New York Times readers also fared well: 42% got all of the questions right. USA Today readers scored better than the general public, but not nearly as well as Times or Journal readers; 22% of USA Today readers got all the questions correct, while 6% got all four wrong. As a whole, 22% of daily paper readers answered all the questions correctly.

Looking at the talk shows, at least 30% of the audiences for Limbaugh, Hannity, Olbermann and Maddow got all four questions correct. O’Reilly’s audience did about as well (29%). The regular Glenn Beck and Hardball audiences performed slightly worse, with 21% and 23% of their respective viewers getting all the questions correct. Daily Show and Colbert Report audiences fared about as well.

Overall, seven-in-ten Americans know that Democrats have a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. No media audience did poorly on this question, and 90% or more of the Hannity, Limbaugh and O’Reilly audiences got this right.

Far fewer know that Eric Holder is the attorney general. Just 22% got this question right. Wall Street Journal readers and Hannity viewers performed best on this question, with 56% of each audience answering it correctly.

About four-in-ten (41%) know that Steve Jobs is the head of Apple. Wall Street Journal (85%) and New York Times (80%) readers are especially likely to know this. Six-in-ten know that the volcanic eruption that recently disrupted international air travel is in Iceland. Journal (82% correct) and Times (81%) readers also did especially well on this question.
It's near the bottom of this page, from 2010 - ( New Window )

In comment 12204550 section125 said:

Quote:

In comment 12204527 River Mike said: Quote: In comment 12204284 eclipz928 said: Quote: don't seem to understand that it's not the fact that the channel has a conservative bias that bothers people, but that the network routinely presents things that are demonstrably untrue as fact. There's nothing wrong with having a bias as long as the information presented is factual. There's also nothing wrong with providing counter-factual information as long as it's not presented as "news". FNC seems to split the baby on both counts. EXACTLY!!! I have always considered myself conservative and I am still a registered Republican. I was happy that a conservative major news program was airing. But c'mon, its not the bias that's disturbing its the total lack of credibility that makes them a joke. Its hard for me to believe that intelligent people don't take their "news" with a grain of salt and check out the veracity themselves. Now I will bow out 'cause I think I am on the verge of becoming too political. Who are we checking the veracity with/against? The other news outlets?

There are a number of fact checking websites such as Snopes.

In comment 12204576 Moondawg said:

Quote:

but here is actual pew research center data on what media consumers are most knowledgeable. From 2010. x meadowlander, this may make you puke in your mouth, haha, Rush Limbaugh listeners scored higher on actual knowledge of current political affairs than npr listeners. And shockingly, Hannity listeners are higher than most on MSNBC. (I don't listen to any of these idiots. I like my life far to much to listen to any of this bullshit or anything like it.) * * * Knowledge of Politics and Current Events Asked a series of four questions to test their knowledge about politics and current events, just 14% of the public got all four correct – as many got all four wrong (15%). Two-in-ten got three correct, 26% two and 25% one. Regular readers, viewers or listeners of most media sources outscored the general public. People were asked which party currently controls the House of Representatives (Democrats), to identify the post held by Eric Holder (U.S. attorney general), which company is run by Steve Jobs (Apple) and which country has an active volcano that disrupted international air travel earlier this year (Iceland). Wall Street Journal readers fared the best on the quiz—51% of regular Journal readers got all four questions right; just 3% got none right. New York Times readers also fared well: 42% got all of the questions right. USA Today readers scored better than the general public, but not nearly as well as Times or Journal readers; 22% of USA Today readers got all the questions correct, while 6% got all four wrong. As a whole, 22% of daily paper readers answered all the questions correctly. Looking at the talk shows, at least 30% of the audiences for Limbaugh, Hannity, Olbermann and Maddow got all four questions correct. O’Reilly’s audience did about as well (29%). The regular Glenn Beck and Hardball audiences performed slightly worse, with 21% and 23% of their respective viewers getting all the questions correct. Daily Show and Colbert Report audiences fared about as well. Overall, seven-in-ten Americans know that Democrats have a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. No media audience did poorly on this question, and 90% or more of the Hannity, Limbaugh and O’Reilly audiences got this right. Far fewer know that Eric Holder is the attorney general. Just 22% got this question right. Wall Street Journal readers and Hannity viewers performed best on this question, with 56% of each audience answering it correctly. About four-in-ten (41%) know that Steve Jobs is the head of Apple. Wall Street Journal (85%) and New York Times (80%) readers are especially likely to know this. Six-in-ten know that the volcanic eruption that recently disrupted international air travel is in Iceland. Journal (82% correct) and Times (81%) readers also did especially well on this question. It's near the bottom of this page, from 2010 - ( New Window )

Actually, the WSJ does about as well as any source in those polls. The other thing is that confidence in the accuracy and veracity of virtually every news source has declined over the 12 years the survey covered. Obviously, things have become more polarized.

in 3 paragraphs. At least he's an efficient axe-grinder.

In comment 12203800 bhill410 said:

Quote:

It's just insane to me that it somehow rests there. I challenge anyone to watch the vice episode on the South Pole and not think something drastic isn't occurring.

That's not a very challenging challenge. Global warming skeptics are so devoted to their skepticism that they'd be unmoved by any evidence support GW even if they lived in the South Pole and observed that shit firsthand for twenty years.

There's a difference between accepting the premise of man-made global warning and the natural cycles of climate change on the earth. Nobody doubts that the climate changes... New York was under a mile of ice 10K years ago. There is clearly science there. The problem is that politicians and charlottes have claimed that it's un-natural change caused by man and then they seek to implement policies to make them rich and powerful. What's worse is that these same people make-up their own facts and accuse skeptics of stupidity. Come on... ANYONE who says there is scientific certainty about anything is selling you snake oil.

Is the Earth changing... Yes. Is Al Gore a credible source of scientific fact that man is causing these changes... hell no.

In comment 12205254 BamaBlue said:

Quote:

There's a difference between accepting the premise of man-made global warning and the natural cycles of climate change on the earth. Nobody doubts that the climate changes... New York was under a mile of ice 10K years ago. There is clearly science there. The problem is that politicians and charlottes have claimed that it's un-natural change caused by man and then they seek to implement policies to make them rich and powerful. What's worse is that these same people make-up their own facts and accuse skeptics of stupidity. Come on... ANYONE who says there is scientific certainty about anything is selling you snake oil. Is the Earth changing... Yes. Is Al Gore a credible source of scientific fact that man is causing these changes... hell no.

Nicely put. I hope people have noticed that the climate-sky-falling people is no longer calling it global warming. Why? The earth hasn't warmed significantly in close to twenty years. So now they call it climate change, which has been happening since the dawn of time.

Climate changers have created a nice industry for themselves. Okay, we're capitalists. They make money from grants, from schools, from private donations to continue their "scientific" studies. God could come down and say, hey, this is how I made things to go and you can't stop it one way or the other and these people wouldn't believe it because it would cut off their funding and their livelihood.

That's some serious word-wrangling there, Chief. I don't know what you consider to be 'significant'.

I stand by the consensus of Climatologists, and I stand by the fact that the Energy industry has a HELL of a lot more influence and incentive to mislead and manipulate. Take a look at Energy Industry Lobbying $$$ vs. Green interests. The media misinformation campaign has been tremendously effective, as reflected by the large disparity between public perception and the climatologist consensus.

Anyway.

14 of the 15 hottest years on record have been since Y2K. You don't think it's 'significant'. The Climatologist community disagrees.


2014 warmest year on record, say US researchers - ( New Window )

In comment 12205355 Montreal Man said:

Quote:

In comment 12205254 BamaBlue said: Quote: There's a difference between accepting the premise of man-made global warning and the natural cycles of climate change on the earth. Nobody doubts that the climate changes... New York was under a mile of ice 10K years ago. There is clearly science there. The problem is that politicians and charlottes have claimed that it's un-natural change caused by man and then they seek to implement policies to make them rich and powerful. What's worse is that these same people make-up their own facts and accuse skeptics of stupidity. Come on... ANYONE who says there is scientific certainty about anything is selling you snake oil. Is the Earth changing... Yes. Is Al Gore a credible source of scientific fact that man is causing these changes... hell no. Nicely put. I hope people have noticed that the climate-sky-falling people is no longer calling it global warming. Why? The earth hasn't warmed significantly in close to twenty years. So now they call it climate change, which has been happening since the dawn of time. Climate changers have created a nice industry for themselves. Okay, we're capitalists. They make money from grants, from schools, from private donations to continue their "scientific" studies. God could come down and say, hey, this is how I made things to go and you can't stop it one way or the other and these people wouldn't believe it because it would cut off their funding and their livelihood.

MM, you are 100% wrong regarding the Earth not warming over the last 20 years. I mean so far off with that claim that it makes one wonder how much you actually have read up on the subject.

In comment 12205807 montanagiant said:

Quote:

In comment 12205355 Montreal Man said: Quote: In comment 12205254 BamaBlue said: Quote: There's a difference between accepting the premise of man-made global warning and the natural cycles of climate change on the earth. Nobody doubts that the climate changes... New York was under a mile of ice 10K years ago. There is clearly science there. The problem is that politicians and charlottes have claimed that it's un-natural change caused by man and then they seek to implement policies to make them rich and powerful. What's worse is that these same people make-up their own facts and accuse skeptics of stupidity. Come on... ANYONE who says there is scientific certainty about anything is selling you snake oil. Is the Earth changing... Yes. Is Al Gore a credible source of scientific fact that man is causing these changes... hell no. Nicely put. I hope people have noticed that the climate-sky-falling people is no longer calling it global warming. Why? The earth hasn't warmed significantly in close to twenty years. So now they call it climate change, which has been happening since the dawn of time. Climate changers have created a nice industry for themselves. Okay, we're capitalists. They make money from grants, from schools, from private donations to continue their "scientific" studies. God could come down and say, hey, this is how I made things to go and you can't stop it one way or the other and these people wouldn't believe it because it would cut off their funding and their livelihood. MM, you are 100% wrong regarding the Earth not warming over the last 20 years. I mean so far off with that claim that it makes one wonder how much you actually have read up on the subject.

I'm not up on this debate, though I often hear of a "pause" in the last 15 years. Since you feel so strongly, Montana, do you have a credible link?

In comment 12205885 Moondawg said:

Quote:

I'm not up on this debate, though I often hear of a "pause" in the last 15 years. Since you feel so strongly, Montana, do you have a credible link?

Any link posted will be dismissed by one side or another. You can google an article that says just about anything you want. I've seen a some that are relatively low on the ideological scale that says that the warming has not stopped, but has SLOWED over the last 15 or so years. You could have 14 out of the 15 hottest years since 2000 but still have a slowing rate if increase as you are starting out at a comparatively high temperature to begin with. Linked is an article from The Economist that discusses this without hyperventilating.


Link - ( New Window )

...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)

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?

it's fools like this that play political games with an issue... politics has corrupted science.

Quote:

On Wednesday, California Democrat Barbara Lee proposed a resolution in the House of Representatives that claims women will eventually be forced into prostitution in order to obtain life-sustaining food and water for their families. Lee introduced House Concurrent Resolution 29, warning that women will be forced into “transactional sex” to get enough food and clean water — all because global warming will create “conflict and instability” in the world. “Women will disproportionately face harmful impacts from climate change,” Lee’s resolution reads. It continues claiming, “Food insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health.” Lee’s document goes on to urge Congress to agree on the “disparate impacts of climate change on women,” and goes on to demand that Congress use “gender-sensitive frameworks in developing policies to address climate change.”

because it already melted away.

Quote:

A study published in December of 2014 showed that the rate of glacier melting had tripled in the Antarctic region that saw the most ice thinning over the last decade. Glaciers in the Amundsen Sea of west Antarctica are losing ice faster than anywhere else on the continent and are the largest contributors to the rise of sea levels, researchers said. Two other studies published in 2014 concluded that the melting of large glaciers in western Antarctica, which have enough water to raise sea levels at least one meter, will accelerate with global warming and the melting is likely irreversible.

Link - ( New Window )

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.

.

In comment 12206119 BamaBlue said:

Quote:

Quote: WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — Secretary of State John Kerry warns U.S. ambassadors that they will be dealing with “climate refugees” in the not-too-distant future. Kerry told U.S. ambassadors at the Global Chiefs of Mission Conference in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday about the threat climate change poses around the world. “There’ll be climate refugees that all of you will be coping with at some point, if not now, in the not-too-distant future,” Kerry said. The secretary of state warned that there could potentially be 500-year long droughts. “It is a national security threat, it is a health threat, it’s an environmental threat, it’s an economic threat,” Kerry said. “We’re spending billions upon billions — $110 billion last year on the damages that occurred because of the increased level of major weather events around the world; droughts that are 500-year droughts, not 100-year droughts; places that have less and less water; food that is less produced where it used to be.” Kerry stated that we have a responsibility to respond to climate change.

I rest my case.

use the 18-year trend to "prove" that global warming isn't happening.

Of course, anyone who uses an anomalous peak year in 1998 to do a trend calculation is either a liar or a fraud, but never mind. Hmm, looks like a trend to me. And as noted, the 2014 peak isn't included yet in most graphs.

In comment 12206125 x meadowlander said:

Quote:

In comment 12206119 BamaBlue said: Quote: Quote: WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — Secretary of State John Kerry warns U.S. ambassadors that they will be dealing with “climate refugees” in the not-too-distant future. Kerry told U.S. ambassadors at the Global Chiefs of Mission Conference in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday about the threat climate change poses around the world. “There’ll be climate refugees that all of you will be coping with at some point, if not now, in the not-too-distant future,” Kerry said. The secretary of state warned that there could potentially be 500-year long droughts. “It is a national security threat, it is a health threat, it’s an environmental threat, it’s an economic threat,” Kerry said. “We’re spending billions upon billions — $110 billion last year on the damages that occurred because of the increased level of major weather events around the world; droughts that are 500-year droughts, not 100-year droughts; places that have less and less water; food that is less produced where it used to be.” Kerry stated that we have a responsibility to respond to climate change. I rest my case.

500 year droughts - like the area around Macedonia (iirc) that used to be fertile ground around the time of Christ and then shortly thereafter became a virtual desert?

We are just now getting proficient at 5 day forecasts and hoping to get to 7 days and John Kerry is talking about 500 year droughts and you wonder why some people are dubious of this science.

Again, until China and India are reigned in, there is nothing we can do to touch CO2 reductions.

is one of the stupidest fucking things I have ever seen...

at 5 day forecasts and hoping to get to 7 days and John Kerry is talking about 500 year droughts and you wonder why some people are dubious of this science."

Yup, people who misunderstand the difference between weather and climate are going to be incredibly dubious. Gobsmacked, in fact.

In comment 12206154 Chris in Philly said:

Quote:

is one of the stupidest fucking things I have ever seen...

Thank you.

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.

In comment 12206154 Chris in Philly said:

Quote:

is one of the stupidest fucking things I have ever seen...

It's an affront to Skepticism.

They aren't Skeptics.

They're deniers.

Worst drought in 500 years, not necessarily drought that lasts 500 years.

Still me and misery and death. Probably more acutely in the short term since populations change and move over 500 year cycles.

In comment 12206174 Tesla said:

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.

MM did NOT say there no increase. He said no significant increase. There's a big difference.

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?

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 )

The 97% refers to the percentage of peer reviewed papers covering the topic of anthroprogenic climate change that conclude that not only is climate change a reality, but that human behavior is a contributing factor

Thanks. I simply wanted to see where this number was coming from. I will review links.

In comment 12206206 aquidneck said:

Quote:

Worst drought in 500 years, not necessarily drought that lasts 500 years. Still me and misery and death. Probably more acutely in the short term since populations change and move over 500 year cycles.

The quote is 500 year droughts. Does not say worst drought in 500 yrs.

think it's misleading. pretty sure it means worst drought in 500 years.

NewsMax of all things article about California's 500-year drought.
500 year drought - ( New Window )

In comment 12203542 giant24 said:

Quote:

In comparison rankings, 29 percent responded that they trust Fox News the most. CNN follows with 22 percent, CBS News and NBC News are at 10 percent, ABC News at 8 percent and MSNBC at 7 percent. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/fox-news-trusted-network-poll-115887.html#ixzz3VRcHeh7Q Quinnipiac University poll - ( New Window )

You mean Florida has refused to acknowledge it exists?

In comment 12206430 aquidneck said:

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.

In comment 12206173 Randy in CT said:

Quote:

In comment 12206154 Chris in Philly said: Quote: is one of the stupidest fucking things I have ever seen... Thank you.

It is unparalleled by anything else in its ignorance

In comment 12206498 section125 said:

Quote:

In comment 12206430 aquidneck said: Quote: Throughout history weather patterns have changed causing fertile areas to die. Man had nothing to do with those.

Man didn't have anything to do with the weather, EVERYTHING to do with over or improperly cultivating land in a manner that brings forth disasters like the dust bowl.

Again - 97% Consensus by the subject matter experts. What some of you are engaging in IS Conspiracy Theory and SHOULD be called out as such. Every time. Like - faking the moon landing 9/11 Truther level stuff. THAT bad. Call it what it is.

Pretty sure the dust bowl has been score by history as man-made folly. Don't know about the Florida lake.

Despite skeptisism, I'll go with the 97% of scientists who agree climate change is (at least in part) man made and that it is an existential threat.

Chris's linked article was pretty convincing.

In comment 12205885 Moondawg said:

Quote:

In comment 12205807 montanagiant said: Quote: In comment 12205355 Montreal Man said: Quote: In comment 12205254 BamaBlue said: Quote: There's a difference between accepting the premise of man-made global warning and the natural cycles of climate change on the earth. Nobody doubts that the climate changes... New York was under a mile of ice 10K years ago. There is clearly science there. The problem is that politicians and charlottes have claimed that it's un-natural change caused by man and then they seek to implement policies to make them rich and powerful. What's worse is that these same people make-up their own facts and accuse skeptics of stupidity. Come on... ANYONE who says there is scientific certainty about anything is selling you snake oil. Is the Earth changing... Yes. Is Al Gore a credible source of scientific fact that man is causing these changes... hell no. Nicely put. I hope people have noticed that the climate-sky-falling people is no longer calling it global warming. Why? The earth hasn't warmed significantly in close to twenty years. So now they call it climate change, which has been happening since the dawn of time. Climate changers have created a nice industry for themselves. Okay, we're capitalists. They make money from grants, from schools, from private donations to continue their "scientific" studies. God could come down and say, hey, this is how I made things to go and you can't stop it one way or the other and these people wouldn't believe it because it would cut off their funding and their livelihood. MM, you are 100% wrong regarding the Earth not warming over the last 20 years. I mean so far off with that claim that it makes one wonder how much you actually have read up on the subject. I'm not up on this debate, though I often hear of a "pause" in the last 15 years. Since you feel so strongly, Montana, do you have a credible link?

Moondawg, the confusion over that claim comes from those using a one year abnormal reading (2013) as something as proof of climate change not being real. It was a record setting year of the caps melting. Because the next year was not worse in the yearly measured melt (it still lost more ice shelf though from the proceeding year) its been used as a claim of "see we are not getting worse, just look how 2014 was actually less seasonal melt" as an argument. When the 20 years as a whole is viewed there is a systematic rate of increasing of the actual total shelf melt.

In comment 12205254 BamaBlue said:

Quote:

The problem is that politicians and charlottes have claimed that it's un-natural change caused by man and then they seek to implement policies to make them rich and powerful.

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.

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.

In comment 12206250 Big Al said:

Quote:

In comment 12206174 Tesla said: 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 )

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.

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.

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.)

want to provide the literature for you, I doubt you have the same access to those journals that I do...

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

In comment 12206872 Chris in Philly said:

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.

In this study, of the abstracts and self-rated papers that expressed a position on human-based global warming in 2013, 97% of each supported the consensus view that it is happening.
Link - ( New Window )

Here you go. Now the wording is a bit different but:

Quote:

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Link - ( New Window )

In comment 12206967 manh george said:

Quote:

In this study, of the abstracts and self-rated papers that expressed a position on human-based global warming in 2013, 97% of each supported the consensus view that it is happening. 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."

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?

In comment 12206952 Big Al said:

Quote:

In comment 12206872 Chris in Philly said: 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.

Quote:

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

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.

for PNAS is currently 9.809, making it the second most cited scientific journal in the world. Before some mouth breathers who have never heard of the National Academy of Sciences tries to dismiss it.

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.

I have no idea why you guys bothered

In comment 12206995 manh george said:

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."

500+% (Five hundred percent) more Climate experts believe Climate Change is man-made, versus those that do not

In comment 12207026 section125 said:

Quote:

In comment 12206995 manh george said: 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."

And this is what a certain political party wanted to do when they instigated their own investigation into GW by focusing on the few who disagree and obfuscating the massive majority who agree with the premise.

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.

Uncle. I give up. Yes, you have finally done it and disproven the 97% consensus! Send your resume to NASA... or Ted Cruz. He can use ya. :)

In comment 12207022 montanagiant said:

Quote:

I have no idea why you guys bothered

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.

however, what happens on the Senate floor is pathetic sometimes.

In comment 12206113 x meadowlander said:

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.

In comment 12207013 Big Al said:

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.

In comment 12207055 Moondawg said:

Quote:

In comment 12206113 x meadowlander said: 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.

In comment 12206498 section125 said:

Quote:

In comment 12206430 aquidneck said: 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?

In comment 12207031 x meadowlander said:

Quote:

Uncle. I give up. Yes, you have finally done it and disproven the 97% consensus! Send your resume to NASA... or Ted Cruz. He can use ya. :)

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.

In comment 12207056 Wuphat said:

Quote:

In comment 12207013 Big Al said: 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.

First Sentence. Hate when posters put words in my mouth especially when it bears no resemblance to anything I said. Yes I finally got an answer to what I asked. The question now is whether the percentage opinion in papers necessarily reflect the percentage opinion in the field. I say not necessarily but probably gives a decent approximation.

I'm glad I taught you how footnotes work. Nothing else got through but at least I accomplished something.

is a tough subject to discuss. It is strange how much anger I see in some of the comments responding to me for asking a question that they take as attacking.their views even though I probably actually agree with most of them.

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

In comment 12207106 Big Al said:

Quote:

is a tough subject to discuss. It is strange how much anger I see in some of the comments responding to me for asking a question that they take as attacking.their views even though I probably actually agree with most of them.

Al, being deliberately obtuse is beneath you.

I find 40% of your posts awesome 27% of the time!

In comment 12207111 montanagiant said:

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.

if you disagree with the Faber College grads and titans of intellect on man-made global warming, you are a environment hating, right-wing zealot, racist, anti-abortion, gay bashing, Sean Hannity loving, gun toting, religious freak who bathes in the soft glow of the Fox News channel while beating his wife. The science is settled, the earth is flat, now shut the hell up and get me a double-latte.

In comment 12207177 BamaBlue said:

Quote:

if you disagree with the Faber College grads and titans of intellect on man-made global warming, you are a environment hating, right-wing zealot, racist, anti-abortion, gay bashing, Sean Hannity loving, gun toting, religious freak who bathes in the soft glow of the Fox News channel while beating his wife. The science is settled, the earth is flat, now shut the hell up and get me a double-latte.

So stupid. Just so very stupid.

In comment 12207177 BamaBlue said:

Quote:

if you disagree with the Faber College grads and titans of intellect on man-made global warming, you are a environment hating, right-wing zealot, racist, anti-abortion, gay bashing, Sean Hannity loving, gun toting, religious freak who bathes in the soft glow of the Fox News channel while beating his wife. The science is settled, the earth is flat, now shut the hell up and get me a double-latte.

Now that you've provided a concise, succinct description of yourself, what's next on the agenda...the Iran nuclear treaty?

In comment 12207153 Moondawg said:

Quote:

In comment 12207111 montanagiant said: 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

In comment 12207177 BamaBlue said:

Quote:

if you disagree with the Faber College grads and titans of intellect on man-made global warming, you are a environment hating, right-wing zealot, racist, anti-abortion, gay bashing, Sean Hannity loving, gun toting, religious freak who bathes in the soft glow of the Fox News channel while beating his wife. The science is settled, the earth is flat, now shut the hell up and get me a double-latte.

That science stuff ruined your day didn't it?

Being on the same side of the debate--such as it is-- as most scientists is the same as saying that the earth is flat.

How does that work?

In comment 12207177 BamaBlue said:

Quote:

if you disagree with the Faber College grads and titans of intellect on man-made global warming, you are a environment hating, right-wing zealot, racist, anti-abortion, gay bashing, Sean Hannity loving, gun toting, religious freak who bathes in the soft glow of the Fox News channel while beating his wife. The science is settled, the earth is flat, now shut the hell up and get me a double-latte.

No. If you disagree with 97% of subject-matter experts, you are a conspiracy theorist.

In comment 12206907 montanagiant said:

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.

Quote:

In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change." 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 )

of Al Gore did more damage to sane discussion on the "climate change" issue. Who in their right mind doesn't think 4 or what ever billion of people are on this planet has an affect on the environment.

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 )

In comment 12208237 Montreal Man said:

Quote:

In comment 12206907 montanagiant said: 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 think there are 7 billion people on earth, not 4. That's a whole lot more people, whole lot more damage.

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?

In comment 12208927 aquidneck said:

Quote:

I think there are 7 billion people on earth, not 4. That's a whole lot more people, whole lot more damage. 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 didn't mean it as an attack on you.

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.