sort by best latest
Best Answer LandmarkWealth says
Ineresting article in Forbes a few days ago about the majority of scientific opinion. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13...
Yeah, oh yeah, ummmm, what he said. :)
Please read the comments to that Forbes article. It honestly wouldn't pass a 6th grade journalism class. Even the survey's author wrote to complain.
Oh gee JS so much for the value of peer review huh, You can't have it both ways. The comment that made sense said "Science isn’t a democracy where the majority wins. Unpopular ideas are reluctantly accepted,even in the face of overwhelming evidence!"
Not interested in the authors writing skills, only the results of the peer reviewed study. Junkseller please explain the warming during the Crustaceus period, and the 5 major ice ages before the industrial revolution. Sounds pretty volatile.
"yeah what he said" lol So, JS it apears your position is if science disagrees with your opinion, you claim (falsely) there is no peer review, but if there is peer review that disagrees with you, ignore,criticize it, or oh yeah, attack the author
The author is just a journalist. He has nothing to do with the study. I don't know why his grammar would even be relevant.
LandmarkWealth, I just want to voice my thumbs up on your original answer - especially that last paragraph.
Thanks, it's just an inconvienent fact to the climate fanatics that this entire planet has been in a constant state of extreme weather changes long before man walked the earth. Mankind is a grain of sand on the beach.
It was a survey of petroleum professionals in Alberta, yet the author made claims about "the majority of scientists." It's like surveying a church and concluding that scientists agree the world is 5000 years old. Survey authors wrote to say as much.
He linked to two other more diverse studies with the sam result. Again please explain the warming during the Crustaceus period, and the 5 major ice ages before the industrial revolution. How can the climate be so volatile without human intervention ?
Landmark, yes, as former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” -works for made up crises as well as real
Believe in rubbish if you choose. Heartland is also non-scientists funded by oil companies. No one denies natural cycles. They are accounted for in the models. Natural cycles do not preclude human impacts. Past changes were not volatile, but gradual
So you don't consider an ICE age a volatile change from the Crustaceus period. But the earth warming by less then 1 degree fahrenheit in a century, and no change in the last decade is volatile. Dr Spencer at University of AL blew up those models.
I'm not arguing the science with you. I was challenging the credibility of a source you provided. Do you honestly stand by the Forbes article?
Yes, the article quotes more than just. petroleum members. The point is that there are numerous repsected scientist doing peer reviewed work like Dr Roy Spencer that say the opposite. Yet the media portrays this as some uniform belief in disaster
Same old playbook, when they can't argue against the facts they attack the messengers. This is so old and just always the proof they have lost the argument because they will never admit defeat.
Challenging the credibility of expert sources is critically important for everyone. You folks turn devastating scrutiny towards the bulk of the global scientific community and yet only bat a soft lash at the Heartland Institute. It ain't right.
See, they just go on and on and will never admit they're wrong about anything. When shown their hipocracy they ignore it and skip to another form of attack while ignoring the facts. No peer review-oh but there is- it doesn't matter-then- y'all suck.
The SURVEY was peer-reviewed. The Forbes article was not. The Forbes article drew a completely incorrect conclusion from the survey, which the survey authors themselves said in a comment on the article, which to me makes the article uncredible.
And the countless other scientist that feel that climate change is nothing to be concerned about. The problem is your tone in prior comments suggests that those who disagree are flat earthers,when many are respected scientist in acedemia and priv sec
My complaints have been levied only at people who talk about science (Forbes + Heartland), not scientists. Not unlike your complaints against the media. All I've been trying to do is understand how your credibility detector decides which is ok.
Oh...you mean people like Al Gore that have no scientific credentials whatsoever and make 100's of millions creating panic that is not universally backed by scientist. I don't presume a scientist who is employed by industry is inherently dishonest.
Yes, actually. You examine Al Gore, little science cred + conflict of interest, and find that unacceptable. Heartland also has very low science cred with major conflict of interest, but you seem not to mind them.
The Gentlemen from heartland simply reported the results of this peer reviewed study. You are the only one talking about him. He didn't conduct the studies cited. That was done by the American Meteorological Society
JS you totally ignore YOU insisted "Plants Need CO2" site is void of peer-reviewed research, DTMBro shows the scientifc facts on that site were peer reviewed so you skip to another bogus argument and then another Give it up already you lose all cred!
Yes but he WRONGLY reported the results of that survey, which you then repeated. You evidently don't give a crap that your spreading wrong info as long as it jives with what you believe, so whatever, I'll let dishonesty win.
He didn't wrongly report anything. Read the links to the survey yourself. He reported it quite accurately. Read the report yourself instead of comments by other readers. http://www.apegga.org/Environment/reports/ClimateC...
You're right, the survey authors, who wrote a comment pointing out Taylor's numerous errors, obviously have no idea what they are talking about.
What are you talking about. The Survey was conducted by the APEGGA and it's committee, which is a regulatory body. They are not one individual, and they posted no comment on behalf of the committee that I saw.
Survey was developed and analyzed by Lianne Lefsrud for APEGA. She also co-wrote the article linked to and quoted by Taylor and commented on his article.
What are you talking about. Her comments do not in anyway suggest the article is not credible. She is simply stating that it does not represent the entire scientific community. Nor did I say it did. Simply that there is no consensus among scientist.
Landmark, you're never going to get the last word. JS will just go from one strawman argument to another. I know his kind they don't care about the facts and will go to any length possible to divert discussion from them so they can claim victory.
DTMB - Give me a break. I challenged Landmark's source. He went back and re-checked it is all I really wanted, so kudos to him. We still come to a different conclusion. That's alright. That's life. My interest is truth seeking, not winning.
You're free to conclude what you will. But stop pretending like the energy industry is some evil culprit, and anyone who disagrees is a flatearther. When in fact there is still a great deal of debate in the scientific community about mans impact.
- See all 35 commentsHide extra comments
A Little TRUTH says
Thanks for that link which points out “Global warming ” from CFCs and fossil fuel usage is actually only a minor player (if at all) in the changes that are now occurring. Funny how the man made gw crowd (& the media) never go where the truth is.
Dont Taze Me Bro says
So pathetic. CO2 is just one of the greenhouse gasses not particularly harmful but incredibly plentiful thus creating a crisis. CO2 is indeed necessary for plants and animals... in moderation, too much kills them a process that has occurred before.
What is pathetic is how you cling to myths - there are 55 Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment I can list with more room but here is a list of CO2 myths, I bet you ascribe to every one. http://plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=3...
CO2 rich greenhouse environments do not translate to the far more complex real world where extra CO2 is not necessarily beneficial. H. Leighton Steward is not a climate scientist and has no peer-reviewed work (and works for oil and gas companies).
What does that have to do with the myths listed? So are you saying that you believe these myths? That they are not myths? Prove it? You can't so you attack the messenger - very scientific.
Plants Need CO2 is void of peer-reviewed research. Hence, not science. You're welcome to it. I was just pointing that out. Want actual science as well as rebuttals for all of those myths try here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Yeah, peer reviewed science - you're grabbing at that straw? You mean like the peer reviewed science done by the charlatan "scientists" of east Anglia U or haven't you heard of "climategate"?
You mean the East Anglia U that was cleared of any dishonest practices by all eight independent and government investigations? Yeah that's why peer review is important because otherwise it's just rumors.
Independent? Hardly, reviewers were members of the same scientific community who had to act to protect the "integrity" of their peers. They only found "no evidence of wrong doing." Emails themselves aren't evidence but their implications were serious
Climategate? The undying rumor of the the intellectually impoverished? It's been reviewed to death. At least 9 times, not always by scientists. Even without review, it was cherry-picked quotes taken out of context that amounted to nothing.
Of course YOU'D say that. While peer review is the mainstay of sci publishing any scientist will tell you it has a great deal of difficulty detecting fraud claims and the current system isn't perfect having alot of problems, some of them serious.
You SHOULD challenge credibility. That's the point. You don't have to agree on how credibility is established (e.g. peer-review) but you do have to have some reason to consider sources credible right? So, for Plants Need CO2, what is it?
You lost me on that one...Plants need CO2 for photosynthesis, a scientific fact that needs no peer review for validation. Furthermore when 99% of global warming is due to the sun what sense does it make to focus on CO2 unless you have another agenda.
Junkseller, you are dead wrong asserting the myths I cited aren't peer reviewed, start with the first Myth: more CO2 in the atmosphere will make ocean acidic. http://www.c3headlines.com/are-oceans-becoming-aci... Want me to go through the rest?
"Plants Need CO2" was in reference to a website.
Citing isn't doing. Anyone can cite scientific work, that doesn't mean they understand it or draw proper conclusions. Would you let a non-doctor do surgery on you because they read an article about it?
Sorry JS - I didn't post that link so it didn't hit home. I see what you meant, but it looks like DTMBro posted one for you, look back.
If simply citing peer-reviewed science establishes credibility in your mind, than that is your prerogative. I am far more discerning in whose work I choose to accept. "Plants Need CO2" is a brain-cell destroying vortex of horsepoo. To be polite.
- See all 16 commentsHide extra comments
Jim Miller says
When 99 % of what affects global warming is totally out of our control (the sun) it seems futile to even think that any effect man might have being much less than 1% can merit changing our way of living to the extent of ruining our economy.
2 answers hidden due to negative feedback. Show
2 answers hidden due to negative feedback. Hide