|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..9~10~11~12~13 [Next] | ||||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 15:47, mastermindreader wrote: "On the take" is stronger than the argument needs to be. Surely, if you're a climatologist, massive worldwide concern about Global Warming is the best thing that's happened for your career since...well, ever. What if you just want to be a college professor, or a researcher? Or what if you genuinely believe in mad-made, serious GW with bad consequences, but the degree of certainty isn't as great as some might think? I'd be interested to see figures on grant money available for climate research in 2012 vs., say, 15 years ago.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
And, apparently, regardless what many self-styled "deniers" think about it as well.
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 15:57, mastermindreader wrote: You could make the same observation about non-self-styled African Americans (particularly rappers) who use the N-word. Is that compelling evidence that it's not an offensive word?
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 15:47, mastermindreader wrote: First I think 97% is a bogus claim. Second of all do you REALLY think they are not funded by people like Bill Gates? Wow. Come on Bob. I KNOW you are not this blind. http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php But this is better. It addresses your claim of 97%. Let me guess your response. The source is biased LOL. http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/stud......-flawed/ http://toryaardvark.com/2011/09/12/clima......s-a-lie/ Can we let the 97% figure go now Bob?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 16:02, LobowolfXXX wrote: Well he has deceided it is offensive so it is. That is enough. LIBERALISM- ideas so great we have to mandate them.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 15:51, LobowolfXXX wrote: In response to your first point, yes, I suppose that is so but asking what mainstream Jewish groups and especially Holocaust survivors think about the term is the best we can do. As for your second point, I think that is precisely why Holocaust survivor Dr. Tomkiewicz believes the 'denier' label is so apropos for the climate change skeptics. I won't quote from or paraphrase his article in the fear of misstating his argument. But if you've read it, presumably you see what I am talking about.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
Steve_Mollett Inner circle Eh, so I've made 3006 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 16:04, Dannydoyle wrote: Hoooooooo boy...
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth. - Albert Camus |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 16:02, Dannydoyle wrote: Yes. We can let the 97% figure go. I was wrong. It is actually 97.5%. ColinB posted the following in an earlier post on this thread: Quote:
Regarding the scientific consensus on AGW, a 2009 survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?". More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. But, not surprisingly, you didn't even bother responding to that post. |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Wrong is wrong no matter who posted it.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 15:42, Dannydoyle wrote: If you would actually carefully read my posts, Danny, you will notice that I never claimed that the 'denier' label was NOT offensive NOR did I claim that it WAS offensive. YOU are the person who insists that it is offensive to Jewish people and Holocaust survivors. What I did do, several times, was ask for information and links to sources about what mainstream Jewish groups think about the use of the phrase "global warming denier", and whether it sounds too close to "Holocaust denier" for them. So that I can become informed about the subject and develop a factually informed opinion. That I have had no luck finding any such formal statement from a Jewish group, and that no one else has been either willing or able to provide anything like that, does suggest to me that the controversy over the 'denier' label is not entirely sincere and is indeed largely manufactured. Your insults / attitude / responses / moving the goalposts / etc. on the subject do tend to support that hypothesis.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
BTW, let me be clear, I am willing to accept that the 'denier' label is offensive to some global climate change 'skeptics'.
But, Danny, I believe you have said / implied that it is widely offensive to Jewish people and Holocaust survivors. THAT is what I am asking about. Is it really? Is there any evidence of this?
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
I never said or implied that at all. I am saying there 2 people quite close to me who survived the holocaust find it incredibly offensive and so do I . I think it purposefully conjurers up images and is disrespectful . I have no link for you. Guess I am not mainstream enough.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
ColinB Regular user 129 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 16:02, Dannydoyle wrote: Regarding http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php - the Global Warming Petition Project (AKA the Oregon Petition) - organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), a non-profit organisation run by Arthur B. Robinson - was a mail-in petition with no verification of the signatories; they were simply asked to list their academic degree. Though the project uses the term "scientists" to describe signatories, many of them had degrees in engineering or medicine, including veterinary medicine. The distribution of petitions was relatively uncontrolled; those receiving the petition could check a line that said "send more petition cards for me to distribute." The petition received much criticism. In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote: “Several environmental groups questioned some of the names in the petition. For instance: "Perry S. Mason", who was a legitimate scientist who shared the name of a TV character. Similarly, "Michael J. Fox", "Robert C. Byrd", and "John C. Grisham" were signatories with names shared with famous people. Geraldine Halliwell was added as: "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell." This name may have been contributed by a proxy trying to discredit the petition since Ms. Halliwell has never admitted to signing the petition. Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake", he said.” In 2001, Scientific American reported: “Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.” (Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition ) Regarding http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/stud......-flawed/ , the writer claims that the 97% statistic is based on only 79 “self-selected” climatologists – again, this is not true – the Doran and Zimmerman study I mentioned polled 3,146 Earth scientists. There have been other studies since; Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider in 2010 reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions: “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) 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.” (Source http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/0......pdf+html ) Regarding http://toryaardvark.com/2011/09/12/clima......s-a-lie/ , this was quite a rabid rant that seemed to claim that findings of the Doran and Zimmerman study was based on only 77 climatologists, and then claimed that to mean that only 0.73% of scientists believe in the “climate religion.” It was hard to read and take that blog seriously tough, riddled as it was with phrases such as “Church of Climatology,” “Goregasm” etc. Would love to write more about other things here, but I have stuff to do... |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
So 97% of the people who are paid to tell us the climate is warming agree? Why not 100%?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Colin-
If I understand the research you have posted, the 3,146 Earth scientists polled represent the international community and not just the United States. Is that correct? If so, are you aware of any studies that indicate any statistically significant difference in the percentage of US earth scientists who agree with ACC compared to the rest of the international community of earth scientists? Good thoughts, Bob |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
From "The Scientific American":
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcas......10-08-01 See also: Quote:
...The petitions to reconsider EPA’s Endangerment Finding claim that climate science cannot be trusted, and assert a conspiracy that invalidates the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. After months of serious consideration of the petitions and of the state of climate change science, EPA finds no evidence to support these claims. In contrast, EPA’s review shows that climate science is credible, compelling, and growing stronger. Full text and detailed findings at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf......Document |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
From "The Scientific American" and by the same author as above David Biello:
Will birth control solve climate change? By David Biello |October 11, 2010 An additional 150 people join the ranks of humanity every minute, a pace that could lead our numbers to reach nine billion by 2050. Changing that peak population number alone could save at least 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere each year by 2050, according to a new analysis—the equivalent of cutting more than 10 percent of fossil fuel burning per year. "Demography will matter to greenhouse gas emissions over the next 40 years," said Earth systems scientist Brian O’Neill of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, lead author of the analysis, in a statement. "If global population growth slows down, it is not going to solve the climate problem, but it can make a contribution." O’Neill and his colleagues paired data from national household surveys in 34 countries with a new economic model—the Population Environment and Technology (PET) model—to estimate the impact of various population growth scenarios on greenhouse gas emissions. The model also took into account changes in the makeup of that overall population, based on United Nations data, such as the aging population of Europe as well as the rapidly urbanizing one of India. That urban growth—roughly half of humanity already lives in cities for the first time in recorded history—may lead to a big increase in greenhouse gas emissions. As urban residents enter the middle class, particularly in China and India, they increase their consumption of energy and transportation. "Urban living can be more energy efficient," the authors write in the analysis published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on October 11, but increased income results in "increased emissions." At the same time, the mellowing that comes with age in industrialized countries could cut emissions from countries such as those in the E.U. by as much as 20 percent. At least that’s true if present retirement ages and the like remain the same; "if retirement is postponed," the scientists note, "the emissions-reducing effect of aging that we find here will be lessened." Overall, curbing population growth could reduce greenhouse gas emissions; reducing peak population to roughly 8 billion, for example, could save 29 percent of expected greenhouse gas emissions. Economic growth seems like one way to accomplish that, considering that rising wealth has historically slowed birth rates. But O’Neill and his colleagues warn that, if fewer but richer people consume more—as current consumption patterns in places like the U.S. suggest—those greenhouse gas savings become increased emissions. Ultimately, family planning alone—such as the use of condoms and other reproductive health services—in parts of the world with growing populations, including the U.S., could restrain population growth significantly, this analysis finds. It would appear that we’re trying, thanks primarily to ongoing efforts to enable women to take control of their own lives through education and other methods. Already, birth rates the world over have halved from an average of five children per women to just 2.6 today—a baby bust replacing the baby boom. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obse......-change/ Are all of you AGW fanatics for this anti-human murderous final solution?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
I'm doing my part... A few weeks from 44 years old, and no kids!
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
LOL! Hitler point for Tommy!
BTW- many find the phrase "final solution" to be offensive. Just sayin' |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
In truth Bob you are dead on balls accurate. The phrase has horrible images that do not need to be in the discussion.
I thought murderous was over the too too. I just wish each side would not say these things it clouds the issue beyond recognition.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Do the "warmers" refuse to let facts get in their way? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..9~10~11~12~13 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.12 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |