3rdnlng Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/s...nsensus-on.html Is Google not working for you today? So, the IPCC is now legit? Without reading the 15 different articles that your link provided to look for your quote of "90% of scientists" could you be just confusing the "90% probability of occurrence" statement in the IPCC article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Dennis Miller put it best: I have no problem helping the helpless, but don't make me help the clueless. Extending unemployment benefits over and over is a terrible way to motivate people to find work, but the moment you point it out, you're considered dispassionate or heartless. We have a cleaning lady that comes in twice a month. She's Mexican and speaks broken English but she has basic common sense. Can't get girls to help her because they have too many kids and have to stay home and take government hand outs. It came up because the last few times she has come she had no help. She works her ass off for her money so she gets it while a lot on this board don't. I have all the respect in the world for her but it was funny listening to her go on yesterday with her english being the way it is. I'm gonna have to learn spanish I guess. Not a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 So, the IPCC is now legit? Without reading the 15 different articles that your link provided to look for your quote of "90% of scientists" could you be just confusing the "90% probability of occurrence" statement in the IPCC article? Google is out for a second straight day - bummer! You must be getting a lot of work done. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...a-ssa011609.php Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second. In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming. "The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon." He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists. "They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it." Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Partially because I don't have writers, producers, directors, and sponsors to answer to. But mostly because if I disagreed with my opinion, I'd change it. Writers, producers, directors and sponsors don't make the science invalid. I'd also imagine he has a team to help with research and fact-checking. Nice! I guess I should have asked 'What makes your opinion any more valid than his?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Writers, producers, directors and sponsors don't make the science invalid. I'd also imagine he has a team to help with research and fact-checking. No, but they can very easily make the presentation inaccurate. Don't confuse a TV show - any TV show - with "science". Nice! I guess I should have asked 'What makes your opinion any more valid than his?' An better question would be "What makes your opinion any more valid than one based on Bill Nye's show?" Because I'm not arguing with Nye, I'm arguing with people quoting him as a primary source, which he isn't. My opinion's based on what I've read of the actual research itself, not what I've read of reports on what the actual research contains, or reports on reports on what the research is (i.e. Bill Nye). So, in short, I'm not saying my opinion's more valid than his. I'm saying it's more valid than anyone quoting him, since I'm going on primary sources, which he is not. If I ever get a chance to argue with him, I'll be sure to ask him what his sources are - and slam him just as vigorously as I do people here if he says "Discover Magazine" or "National Geographic". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Google is out for a second straight day - bummer! You must be getting a lot of work done. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...a-ssa011609.php Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second. In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming. "The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon." He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists. "They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it." Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists. OK, so the world might be warmer now than 200 years ago. There also was a time when palm trees grew in Greenland. I guess it must have been all that man-made climate change or methane from dinasaurs that did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 2, 2009 Author Share Posted December 2, 2009 Global Warming? Why are people so afraid to discuss race in America? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 OK, so the world might be warmer now than 200 years ago. There also was a time when palm trees grew in Greenland. I guess it must have been all that man-made climate change or methane from dinasaurs that did it. That's not what it says. Not even a good try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Global Warming? Why are people so afraid to discuss race in America? I've noticed that dumb topics tend to get hijacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 2, 2009 Author Share Posted December 2, 2009 I've noticed that dumb topics tend to get hijacked. 34% unemployment among black men is dumb to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 An better question would be "What makes your opinion any more valid than one based on Bill Nye's show?" Because I'm not arguing with Nye, I'm arguing with people quoting him as a primary source, which he isn't. My opinion's based on what I've read of the actual research itself, not what I've read of reports on what the actual research contains, or reports on reports on what the research is (i.e. Bill Nye). So, in short, I'm not saying my opinion's more valid than his. I'm saying it's more valid than anyone quoting him, since I'm going on primary sources, which he is not. If I ever get a chance to argue with him, I'll be sure to ask him what his sources are - and slam him just as vigorously as I do people here if he says "Discover Magazine" or "National Geographic". This will eventually prove out either way, so you're either right or wrong on this topic no matter what you've read firsthand. Which has yet to be determined. Until then, I'll remember not to quote you as a primary source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 That's not what it says. Not even a good try. Its not what "what" says? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 This will eventually prove out either way, so you're either right or wrong on this topic no matter what you've read firsthand. Which has yet to be determined. Except that my argument has consistently been "the science is garbage". Even if the science ends up being correct, that doesn't mean it isn't garbage. (Nice historical example: Alexander Fleming discovering penicillin, and then bungling along for ten years trying to make it a viable medicine). Until then, I'll remember not to quote you as a primary source. You do, and I'd kick your ass anyway. I'm a knowledgable secondary source at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Except that my argument has consistently been "the science is garbage". Even if the science ends up being correct, that doesn't mean it isn't garbage. (Nice historical example: Alexander Fleming discovering penicillin, and then bungling along for ten years trying to make it a viable medicine). As you seem fond of saying, that is how science is done. How Fleming got there in this example doesn't make his discovery of penicillin any less extraordinary, significant or valuable. If participation in the scientific method results in penicillin, it's all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 As you seem fond of saying, that is how science is done. How Fleming got there in this example doesn't make his discovery of penicillin any less extraordinary, significant or valuable. If participation in the scientific method results in penicillin, it's all good. Except it you look at Fleming's research, it was half-assed and chaotic. Poor methodology. It didn't suddenly become a better methodology and less chaotic when a medicine was finally developed from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts