Surprise U.S.-China climate deal reverberates north and south

Zipperfish

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
petros said:
When the authors of those 33% were asked if they still believe 97% said yes. It has nothing to do with AGW as a scientific whole. Just those authors of the 33% of 14000 papers are in consensus.
Click to expand...

Were the study you are referencing the only one, you might have a point. That study was cooked up by Skeptical Science, as I recall, who are more of an advocacy centre than source of science. However there is plenty of independent corroborating evidence that supports the notion that the vast majority of scientists conducting research in releavnt fields conclude that human emissions of greenhouse gases have warmed the troposphere over the last 150 years.

petros said:
The whole earth has night at the same time?
Click to expand...

And let the petros dance begin.
 
mentalfloss

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
petros said:
The whole earth has night at the same time?
Click to expand...

 
Tecumsehsbones

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,164
9,435
113
Washington DC
petros said:
The whole earth has night at the same time?
Click to expand...
Yes. I already explained this. At night Apollo's chariot goes through the subterranean tunnel so it can begin its east-west flight the next morning.

That's the consensus explanation.

Whassamattawitchoo? Don't understand scientific consensus?
 
mentalfloss

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Tecumsehsbones said:
Mentalfloss, you know that there are measures that can be taken that will ameliorate global warming, if it exists, and also have near-term pollution reduction benefits, right?

Or are you too busy boarding up your windows for the 1,246 Class VIII hurricanes we're going to get next year (according to the model)?
Click to expand...

My point is that you are confusing cause with scope.
 
mentalfloss

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Tecumsehsbones said:
My point is that you are a true believer uninterested in questions, compromise, or productive action. You have The Truth!

Just another damn religion.
Click to expand...

Not true at all.

I've been a skeptic in all things right from the beginning.

I am still skeptical that the consequences are 'dire' even though I think we have a convincing set of research on the cause.
 
EagleSmack

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
mentalfloss said:
Not true at all.

I've been a skeptic in all things right from the beginning.

I am still skeptical that the consequences are 'dire' even though I think we have a convincing set of research on the cause.
Click to expand...

Oh right... how many threads have you started on all this BS... about 100?
 
darkbeaver

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
captain morgan said:
The details of this deal are not binding... it is basically a press release on nothing
Click to expand...

You have it right. China will sign more deals with Uncle Scam in the near future, it will cost them nothing to elevate slightly the positive rays of an expiring lame duck President, leader of a mess in terminal decline. While the western rabble applaud the merely suggested forward motion on an altogether stupid pointless proposal. A photo op of great nothingness.
I have already sent a detailed list of the capitalist sympathisers in this forum to my new Chinese masters, they have offered me north eastern Nova Scotia in return for my cooperation.
 
grainfedpraiboy

grainfedpraiboy

Electoral Member
Mar 15, 2009
715
1
18
Alberta The Last Best West
petros said:
Well grain fed, how did you fall for the 97% of 33%? You seem like a very intelligent fella.
Click to expand...

99.9% of climate scientists agree things are f'up and getting worse and the fundamental disagreement you point out boils down to how badly and why and are divided mostly scientifically. Meanwhile, non scientists and politicians seem to fall into three camps of either 'we're doomed', 'nothing is happening everything is fine' or 'climate change, what's that' and they are divided for the most part politically?

For the first two categories both sides cherry pick data to support their various positions. I don't need to cherry pick data to reinforce a political belief as my belief evolves partially with the consensus of those who know and partially through my own observations. we're not talking about gun control or tax rates. I'm old and experienced enough to know that I don't know squat about science and need to rely on the experts of those who do and the majority of them unfortunately support AGW.

I say unfortunately as I would love nothing better than to live in my 4000+ sq ft house with indoor pool, travel extensively in my motor home and fly overseas twice per year and own my 9 vehicles + snowmobiles and quads without being the environmental hypocrite I am. But I am changing in all fairness.

I also feel the same way about the scientific consensus on new theories regarding vaccines, and the big bang as I do about the classics such as Newton's laws of motion or Darwin's evolution. I essentially go with the consensus of those who eat love sleep and breathe the stuff knowing full well the consensus will change as the subject evolves as the theory is tweaked by each new discovery.
 
grainfedpraiboy

grainfedpraiboy

Electoral Member
Mar 15, 2009
715
1
18
Alberta The Last Best West
Tecumsehsbones said:
Yes, and now you attend the Church of AGW.
Click to expand...

I also attend the Church of "15 is a number greater than 5" and the Church of Blue is a colour because they are also facts.

Tecumsehsbones said:
See, gonorrheafilledprairieboy, before you came back, at one point I outlined some notions for compromise between AGW True Believers and sceptics. Pretty quick I found out nobody's interested in seeking solutions, only in screaming their extremist opinions. So now I just lampoon the alleged thought processes they employ.
Click to expand...

There is a distinct trend you see occurring everywhere:

The more educated and well read you are the more likely you are to understand AGW;
the more in touch with the land you are the more likely you are to see the affects of AGW;
the more removed from nature you are the less likely you are to believe in AGW;
the more uneducated you are the more likely you are to take a position either way based on your politics.

I changed my opinion because I am well read and somewhat experienced. Even many of the Conservative politicians who once didn't buy AGW have for the most part changed quietly changed their opinions in the past decade. While I know there are many who don't believe in AGW and can say with absolute certainty I do not know a single one who is either educated or connected to the land.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,211
14,250
113
Low Earth Orbit
grainfedpraiboy said:
99.9% of climate scientists agree things are f'up and getting worse and the fundamental disagreement you point out boils down to how badly and why and are divided mostly scientifically. Meanwhile, non scientists and politicians seem to fall into three camps of either 'we're doomed', 'nothing is happening everything is fine' or 'climate change, what's that' and they are divided for the most part politically?

For the first two categories both sides cherry pick data to support their various positions. I don't need to cherry pick data to reinforce a political belief as my belief evolves partially with the consensus of those who know and partially through my own observations. we're not talking about gun control or tax rates. I'm old and experienced enough to know that I don't know squat about science and need to rely on the experts of those who do and the majority of them unfortunately support AGW.

I say unfortunately as I would love nothing better than to live in my 4000+ sq ft house with indoor pool, travel extensively in my motor home and fly overseas twice per year and own my 9 vehicles + snowmobiles and quads without being the environmental hypocrite I am. But I am changing in all fairness.

I also feel the same way about the scientific consensus on new theories regarding vaccines, and the big bang as I do about the classics such as Newton's laws of motion or Darwin's evolution. I essentially go with the consensus of those who eat love sleep and breathe the stuff knowing full well the consensus will change as the subject evolves as the theory is tweaked by each new discovery.
Click to expand...

100 people are asked if the believe in ghosts and 66% say no but 33% say yes with 1% undecided. When the 33% yes vote is asked if they still believe in ghosts 97% of the 33% says yes does that mean ghosts are real? Yes or no?
 
grainfedpraiboy

grainfedpraiboy

Electoral Member
Mar 15, 2009
715
1
18
Alberta The Last Best West
Tecumsehsbones said:
99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%


I thought it was 97%. Your math is apparently as good as your science.
Click to expand...

The numbers change when you include the climate scientists who don't believe in the A part in AGW. Wow, you really need things spelled out don't you?

To boil it down: 97.3% believe in AGW to various degrees. 2.96% believe in climate change through natural means and that man has no influence. At statically insignificant number of 10 or so scientific wingbats along with about 50% of Americans believe there is no climate change whatsoever.

Clear enough?

petros said:
100 people are asked if the believe in ghosts and 66% say no but 33% say yes with 1% undecided. When the 33% yes vote is asked if they still believe in ghosts 97% of the 33% says yes does that mean ghosts are real? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

I'm a fair man in a debate petros. Show me data to support the majority of climate scientists saying no to AGW and I will seriously consider it before responding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom