Reply With Quote
But you miss what I pointed out. Yes, they showed tactics used by the proper scientific skeptics. The entire narration was from a viewpoint they are wrong! That is my point!
I disagree. They have not had their asses handed to them at all. I see you fell for the narration that implies AGW is undeniably, the primary reason for warming. Sorry, the science isn't solid enough for that, in fact, there is plenty of evidence that shows AGW cannot be as strong as the alarmists claim.
But you miss what I pointed out. Yes, they showed tactics used by the proper scientific skeptics. The entire narration was from a viewpoint they are wrong! That is my point!
Absolutely.
I can deal with hot and cold, but my sandwiches like butter that spreads properly.
I guess they haven't figured out how to scare policy makers enough with the downward revised CO2 numbers and upward revised Black carbon and Solar numbers...
Else... I bet it would already be out!
Yes, Global warming is real.
When are the alarmists going to chill, and accept a reasonable debate on what is really natural caused and what is human caused?
Until they are willing to be honest... them!
I know what you're talking about, but not even close to "half" are essentially BBC episodes. Best episodes are the ones hosted by Brian Greene and Neil deGrasse Tyson and i'm pretty sure they're original content. Also, BBC is state run television.
Whether it's human cause or naturally caused is becoming an increasingly less popular counter-argument. The new vogue claim is that it's all just a hoax. That was what I got from this episode and it's also my general sense from watching the news.
Exactly. The case isn't that the numbers are wrong but rather that the IPCC is outright lying to everyone. Its laughable considering the level to which the IPCC backs up the physical science behind climate change.
TIMELINE: Fox News' Role In The "Climate Of Doubt"
Fox News Aired A Special Explaining The Science Of Climate Change With No False Balance.
In 2005, Fox News aired a special led "The Heat Is On: The Case of Global Warming," which reportedly did not dispute the science. Fox News' preview of the special stated that "producers traveled to Alaska's Glacier Bay to see evidence of climate change and to speak with scientists who have studied this phenomenon for more than 30 years." In addition to scientists, Fox News interviewed President George W. Bush, former President Bill Clinton, and climate activists who are "committed to teaching everyday Americans and the rest of the world about what can be done to cut down on greenhouse gasses that threaten our children's future." Fox News unequivocally stated the threat of climate change:
Drastic climate changes during the last 100 years have experts worried about the effects of greenhouse gasses.
[...]
Increasingly, as you will see in this special, scientists and government officials alike are agreeing that man's impact on climate has been extreme and the air that we breathe may hold a degenerating quality of life for our children.
[FoxNews.com, 11/11/05] [FoxNews.com, 11/14/05] [Grist, 11/12/05]
Fox News' Senior Vice President Called Global Warming One Of The Top 10 Issues We Face. The Los Angeles Times reported on the special:
Bill Shine, the network's senior vice president for programming, said Fox decided to do the special because global warming is a significant news story.
"There are at least 10 big issues out there today, and that's one of them," Shine said.
[...]
Shine said that the network sees the program as fitting squarely in its mission to deliver the news. Fox has not devoted substantial time to global warming in the past, he said, and felt it was a good time to do so. [The Los Angeles Times, 11/12/05]
Exxon-Funded Groups Lashed Out At Fox News For Running The Special.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201...f-doubt/190906
This is what you said.
They said that the scientific consensus is that climate is warming and that humans are the primary cause. Frontline made no comment on what was 'real' or not beyond what was in that statement . why do you have to be such a less intellectual coward?
You can sit there and say that scientists do not agree that it's humans are causing it but you are full of . Vision Prize, most of the Science Academies of the world including our own, most science ins utions of the world and on and on and on. Only dumb s such as yourself try and argue that 95% of the worlds scientists agree that humans are the primary cause.
Why do you have to try and fill in the gaps with your vapid thoughts? The bolded portions are you doing just that. The people interviewed said that they were more interested in winning the policy/political debate or the red scare than they were about the science. At one point they said that if they won the political debate they would have won the science debate. They didn't have to narrate as it was laid out by the people that were leading the charge within the movement.
No one buys you 'you just don't understand' from you. Nobody but your own dumb delusional self. Go change some parts hit yourself with some 220.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 10-25-2012 at 06:30 PM.
You seem bent on turning every climate-related thread, however tangential, into a 30 page storm.
Set your comments per page to 100. So far, this thread is still on its first page.
Just interested in getting to the truth. Aren't you?
Yes, close to 100% scientists say the earth is warming. Even myself, I believe the earth is warming overall, and that AGW is only somewhere between 10% to 30% of the warming we have. I would say it at least might be significant too. If it is the upper range of my belief, then yes. 30% is significant. Think of the way the message is stated and how most people perceive the message. Even though I am one that claims to be a skeptic, and others call be a denier, I fit their claim!
Let me correct that. I believe our added greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for 10% to 30% of the warming trend. I am also a firm believe that Black carbon (soot) is responsible for as much warming than CO2 is. Will you accept that I believe AGW may be as much as 60%... Just not the way the alarmist crowd says it is.
You are a poorly educated service technician. Who cares what you think? At the end of the day 97% of surveyed scientists say that the Earth is warming and that it is primarily due to human emissions. Your napkin math and simpleminded models combined with a desired outcome cause you to come to your conclusion. You do this with everything. You try to will things to be as you want them rather than take them as they are.
"97% of surveyed scientists say that the Earth is warming and that it is primarily due to human emissions."
and the 3% who deny are s paid by BigCarbon, etc. to deny.
lol WC maths.
Nice blog. I always have like how you get your takes from blogs as opposed to a place like the National Academy. I also note how you once again don't read the that you post. Read the links, dip . I'll help.
From your blogs citation:
I learned a long time ago not to trust you much less your sources. You have zero desire to look past what you think confirms your bias for closer inspection.An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic ins utions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth). To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete, and it was administered by a professional online survey site (http://www.questionpro.com) that allowed one-time participation by those who received the invitation. This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey, which contained up to nine questions (the full study is given by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]):
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%. This is a typical response rate for Web-based surveys [Cook et al., 2000; Kaplowitz et al., 2004]. Of our survey participants, 90% were from U.S. ins utions and 6% were from Canadian ins utions; the remaining 4% were from ins utions in 21 other nations. More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. With survey participants asked to select a single category, the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5–7% of the total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change. While respondents’ names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-do ented dissenting opinions on global warming theory.
Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.
You and your blogger apparently do not know what an online self selected poll means. I'll give you a hint: invitations.
lol self-selecting polls.
Yeah, it's about as scientific as a "who won the debate?" poll on SpursTalk political forum.
The opinions of specific leading scientists at North American Earth science ins utes are not equivalent to a self selected poll of random people on an internet forum. I really don't think you are this stupid, D. It's like this that makes me think that you intentionally try to mislead people.
Yep, 30% of those "invited", actually took the survey (some 3146 participants). "Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2"
The opinions of specific leading scientists at North American Earth science ins utes are not equivalent to a self selected poll of random people on an internet forum. I really don't think you are this stupid, D. It's like this that makes me think that you intentionally try to mislead people.
So, it's totally reasonable to assert "97% of surveyed scientists say that the Earth is warming and that it is primarily due to human emissions". It's science.
Actually, polling is approached as to a science. Now you are being a petulant child. Quit being a little , Darrin.
1) Do you know what the difference between a targeted and self selected poll is?
2) What are the typical response rates for surveys and polls?
The quote I linked you from above answers both of those concerns.
If you want to be accurate i suppose it would be better to say that 97% of climate scientists believe the warming is due to humans and 82% of all scientists who study earth sciences. Maybe you really are that stupid.
Lol, Fuzzy mad.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
