Can blue light from your phone cause vision problems? Find out and learn more about your vision in the AARP Eye Center.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
205
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

205 Views
Message 21 of 70

jimc91 wrote "

Wow do they still have that "special" running a Walmart on crystal balls?

 

And you arrived at your above conclusion all by yourself (along with the crystal ball of course) from the single sentence I wrote..."

 

If you believe we should be spending money based on junk science (deniers) than you must agree with the 3%. No crystal ball is needed.  You also continue to confuse opinion and science.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
205
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
206
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

206 Views
Message 22 of 70

nothappening, this is in reply to your claim that climate has been changing forever (implying this is somehow natural)

 

Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions. Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.

Abrupt vs slow change.

Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high CO2 in the atmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels.

But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped abruptly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today.

Those abrupt global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the PermianTriassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events (a big, rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification) are all happening today with human-caused climate change.

So yes, the climate has changed before humans, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions (just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
206
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
202
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

202 Views
Message 23 of 70

Not Happening,

 

This is in reply to your article from Forbes as to how the 97% consensus was developed:

 

cience achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing.  When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science).  Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them.

Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi OreskesPeter DoranWilliam AndereggBart VerheggenEd MaibachJ. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

consensus vs expertise

Scientific consensus on human-caused global warming as compared to the expertise of the surveyed sample. There’s a strong correlation between consensus and climate science expertise. Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page

Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill. The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists. Crucially, as we note in our paper:

Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a gateway belief, affecting other climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support.

That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They’ve been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the “consensus gap.” Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%.

 

For your 31,000 "scientists"

 

There are several claims that large numbers of scientists do not agree with the theory of climate change, the best known of which is a petition organised by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (the OISM petition). This petition now appears to be signed by over 32,000 people with a BSc or higher qualification. The signatories agree with these statements:

  • The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
  • There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

No evidence has ever been offered to support the first statement, and the second statement is in flat contradiction with the scientists who study climate change. There are also valid issues regarding the methodology:

  • The organisers have never revealed how many people they canvassed (so the response rate is unknown) nor have they revealed the sampling methodology, an ironic omission considering how much fuss is made about scientists being candid and making public their methods and data.
  • The petition is, in terms of climate change science, rather out of date.

In the professional field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change and additional anthropogenic CO2 may cause great disruption to the climate.

 

32,000 Sounds Like A Lot

In fact, OISM signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S)

According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.

There are many issues casting doubt on the validity of this petition. On investigation, attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change often appear to have ideological roots, vested business interests or political sponsors. The claims made for the OISM petition do not withstand objective scrutiny, and the assertions made in the petition are not supported by evidence, data or scientific research.

Several studies conducted independently (Oreskes 2004, Oreskes 2007, Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010), Cook et. al., 2013) have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing global changes to the climate. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
202
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
216
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

216 Views
Message 24 of 70

@Olderscout66 wrote:

So now the URW lie machine is telling dupes that President Obama's plan was to tax American compaines for their pollution AND SEND THE MONEY TO AFRICA?


I guess you consider the NY Times to be ultra right wing.

 

U.S. to Give $3 Billion to Climate Fund to Help Poor Nations, and Spur Rich Ones

 

WASHINGTON — President Obama announced on Saturday that the United States will contribute $3 billion to a new international fund intended to help the world’s poorest countries address the effects of climate change.

Mr. Obama made the announcement at a summit meeting of the Group of 20 industrial powers this weekend in Brisbane, Australia, on the heels of his landmark announcement this week that the United States and China will jointly commit to curbing greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade.

The two announcements, both unveiled at prominent global meetings with world leaders, highlight Mr. Obama’s intention to use the last two years of his administration to push forward on climate change policy, which he sees as a cornerstone of his legacy.

Mr. Obama aims to be the lead broker of an international climate change accord, to be signed in Paris next year, that would commit all the world’s major economies to significantly cutting their emissions of planet-warming carbon pollution from the burning of coal and oil.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/politics/obama-climate-change-fund-3-billion-announcement.html...

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
216
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
229
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

229 Views
Message 25 of 70

So now the URW lie machine is telling dupes that President Obama's plan was to tax American compaines for their pollution AND SEND THE MONEY TO AFRICA? Probably they realized people would figure out the money would do the country good even if it was just given to "innercity non-workers" because they'd spend it and create demand that would boost theeconomy, so they added the bit about sending the money to Africa so none of their followers would think it could possibly help them.

 

What is really tragic is the Republicans have so undersupported education that there's actually people in America who believe such tripe. Small wonder they cannot understand a simple thing like the importance of "peer review" when deciding what "science" they will believe.

 

Folks, these people elected a majority in the House and Senate and gave us the most congenitally unqualified POTUS in history BECAUSE THEY ALWAYS VOTE.

 

If you have a problem having a country led by a draft-dodging preppytwit who ceased maturing emotionally and intellectually at age 7 and a Congress who blindly follows him, then VOTE, and make sure everyone who shares your view does as well.

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
229
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
232
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

232 Views
Message 26 of 70

@sp362 wrote:

@jimc91 wrote:

I don't view it as my tax dollars being wasted.

 

Then that must mean you believe the 3% of scientists who say it isn't happening, instead of the 97% who say it is.  Personally, I consider this to be a waster of money.  If they want to have a hearing about what to do about it and they decide nothing, then so be it, but they need to quit questioning the science.



Wow do they still have that "special" running a Walmart on crystal balls?

 

And you arrived at your above conclusion all by yourself (along with the crystal ball of course) from the single sentence I wrote...

 

 Now that is just TOO FUNNY...

 

All those words to say what? That you disagree?  Would it not be more direct to say you disagree rather than going scorched earth? (ridicule, mock, discredit)

 

Why do democrats oppose differing opinions?

 

1000 seats lost and counting.

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
232
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
231
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

231 Views
Message 27 of 70

@sp362 wrote:

 


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@jimc91 wrote:

 

Your above statement is YOUR OPINION, this is mine.

 

Why are democrats so opposed to others that have differing opinions?

 

 


Democrat's opinion is the Gospel (in their mind)!  There are scientists with better qualifations that disagree BUT Democrats (think that) know their answer is always the right answer.


I will be happy to have a scientific discussion with you on any climate change point that you want to discuss.


Neither you or I are Climate experts (if even any exist) and your OPINION is as valid as any other posters, and not one iota more!


What you don't seem to understand when you can back up your opinion with facts, it is a lot more powerful than "it isn't happening".


So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#25d04...

 

I just wonder just how gullible liberals are.  Climate changes have been going on for eons and no liberal or scientist can tell us how taxing Americans with punitive taxes and giving the money to Africa will mitigate the "climate change  (Obama's Plan).

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
231
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
234
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

234 Views
Message 28 of 70


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@jimc91 wrote:

 

Your above statement is YOUR OPINION, this is mine.

 

Why are democrats so opposed to others that have differing opinions?

 

 


Democrat's opinion is the Gospel (in their mind)!  There are scientists with better qualifations that disagree BUT Democrats (think that) know their answer is always the right answer.


I will be happy to have a scientific discussion with you on any climate change point that you want to discuss.


Neither you or I are Climate experts (if even any exist) and your OPINION is as valid as any other posters, and not one iota more!


What you don't seem to understand when you can back up your opinion with facts, it is a lot more powerful than "it isn't happening".

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
234
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
224
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

224 Views
Message 29 of 70

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@jimc91 wrote:

 

Your above statement is YOUR OPINION, this is mine.

 

Why are democrats so opposed to others that have differing opinions?

 

 


Democrat's opinion is the Gospel (in their mind)!  There are scientists with better qualifations that disagree BUT Democrats (think that) know their answer is always the right answer.


If it makes it easier, why don't you list your scientists and their studies, or papers they have written and we can discuss them.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
224
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
214
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

214 Views
Message 30 of 70

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@jimc91 wrote:

 

Your above statement is YOUR OPINION, this is mine.

 

Why are democrats so opposed to others that have differing opinions?

 

 


Democrat's opinion is the Gospel (in their mind)!  There are scientists with better qualifations that disagree BUT Democrats (think that) know their answer is always the right answer.


I will be happy to have a scientific discussion with you on any climate change point that you want to discuss.


Neither you or I are Climate experts (if even any exist) and your OPINION is as valid as any other posters, and not one iota more!

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
214
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark

Top Authors