Global Warming Study Ship Stuck in Ice

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by jackdog, Dec 28, 2013.

  1. RichT2705

    RichT2705 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    28,887
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your stock in Carbonscape might not pan out Bower. Sell it if you still can.
     
  2. jc456

    jc456 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Again, why are there any detractors at all? If it is so, then why isn't it 100%? Please explain, the 3% of your own numbers on why they didn't agree?

    You see the mere fact that the number in your own post isn't 100% means there isn't evidence! None. The sky is blue is 100%, because that is fact!
     
  3. jc456

    jc456 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What are you on the ship?
     
  4. jc456

    jc456 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who is on the ship and stuck? i don't know any denilists stuck on a boat in the middle of the Antarctic in summer. So who is it that doesn't know there are blizzards in summer? LOL at the fools.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Who don't know there are blizzards in mid summer in the antarctic!
     
  5. jc456

    jc456 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why wouldn't we when that is exactly what is happening. thanks and have a nice day!
     
  6. jc456

    jc456 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    dude who is stuck? my god can't you see anything?
     
  7. Wehrwolfen

    Wehrwolfen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Messages:
    25,350
    Likes Received:
    5,257
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hmm...., Lying? That's a Progressive thing.
     
  8. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The tourists have been evacuated to the safety of the Aussie icebreaker.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Geography's obviously passed some deniers by.
     
  9. Wehrwolfen

    Wehrwolfen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Messages:
    25,350
    Likes Received:
    5,257
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Aye, While here in Canada and America we're have historical snow storms and temperatures in subzero levels seldom seen.
     
  10. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [​IMG]

    Look at those temps!
     
  11. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [video=youtube_share;yfSLuEj99d0]http://youtu.be/yfSLuEj99d0[/video]
     
  12. jc456

    jc456 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A three hour cruise..........
     
  13. Stuart Wolfe

    Stuart Wolfe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    14,967
    Likes Received:
    11,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So, what percentage of the network stories on the Freeze Cruise mentioned the fact that there was a Global Warming Expedition going on? Go on, guess!

    Nope, no spinning away from the Liberal Narrative at the Legacy media if it looks bad - no, sir! :roflol:
     
  14. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
  15. Quantumhead

    Quantumhead New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They aren't my numbers. Three separate studies have led to the same number. The Doran and Zimmerman study, the Sceptical Science abstract study and the Anderegg study. But in answer to your question then you won't even get a 100 percent consensus on general relativity, so the result is unsurprising. In one of the studies mentioned, the sample group was 77 Earth scientists, and 75 agreed with the climate change position.
     
  16. jc456

    jc456 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But why is it two didn't agree? Those two tell me a heck of lot more about the info in their studies than do the 75. You see it states that something is wrong, the data is not factual, it is hypothetical. The fact that an apple falls from the tree is confirmed. Throw a baseball in the air and it will come down, every single time, unless of course you hit a bird's beak in flight. However, eventually the bird will come down and the ball with it.
     
  17. Ex-lib

    Ex-lib Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Messages:
    4,809
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I doubt if that applied to the guy who came up with quantum theory, Quantumhead.

    Or the guy who came up with General Relativity, or who invented the wheel, or went over Niagara Falls in a barrel or the first guy to "sail off the edge of the earth" because as everyone can clearly see, the earth ends at the horizon...

    And when Al Gore said that by 2013, all the ice would be gone from the Arctic, was he drawing from the conclusions of "everyone else" (aka 98% of climate scientists, as you say) or was he as stupid as some people think, and he was just guessing?

    I'll tell you what to look for re: the person who's lying- look for the guys who falsify evidence.
     
  18. Wake_Up

    Wake_Up New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And let's not forget, Al Gore got a Nobel for making a fantasy movie about "Global Warming"...I have yet to see or hear of which particular degree(s) mister Gore has that makes him a notable expert o the subject.

    I still maintain that any "crisis" that is "championed" by the government is immediately suspect, and in most cases complete, and utter bunk. It exists for the sole purpose of providing political grand stand points for reelection and pocketing of massive amounts of money. The brainwashing of the sheeple along the way never hurts as it only fosters further control of the masses.
     
  19. Quantumhead

    Quantumhead New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All of those people did that, because you must start every scientific experiment without either expecting or not expecting to see certain results. That would make a scientist biased, when they are only supposed to be a mere observer to the experiment. Your comparison to the horizon is a fallacy, since the Earth ending at the horizon is not evidence that the Earth is flat and therefore there is/was nothing to discredit.

    You should try to understand that Al Gore is not a climate scientist and that the case for climate change does not rest upon the word of Al Gore.
     
  20. Wake_Up

    Wake_Up New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, it's probably due more to things like:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record/

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

    http://www.naturalnews.com/041637_global_warming_associated_press_media_bias.html

    there's plenty of others too. So yeah, it's all BS. Besides, no one on the right is arguing the climate doesn't change, we are just saying the whole government concocted fraud that it's mankind causing it is politically motivated BS.
     
  21. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here is a good outline of what has happened.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/2101561
     
  22. Wake_Up

    Wake_Up New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0

    97%????? BWAHAHAAHAHAHA...lemme guess, you still believe Bush lied about WMD in Iraq too, right?

    Uh huh...

    Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims


    Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

    Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

    As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

    Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

    Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

    Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

    When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.

    “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

    “What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.

    Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”

    “I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added.

    To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.

    Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”

    Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”

    “I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.

    “I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.

    Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.

    Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.

    These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
     
  23. Wake_Up

    Wake_Up New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The myth here is the BS 97% claim. It ain't true, but that'll never stop the lefties from claiming it over, and over, and over and over and over...until every good little sheeple can quote it verbatim.
     
  24. Wake_Up

    Wake_Up New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm guessing the written English language is not your native written language, as anyone but a foreigner or a complete dolt could possibly misconstrue what was written in that post...unless, of course, your entire purpose and point was to intentionally deflect to avoid further embarrassment from the absolute spanking you have received thus far.

    Just MHO, but if I were in your position on this, I'd just shut up and stop posting. You've gone from laughable to an utterly embarrassing train wreck. I'm not sure if it is hysterically funny, or pitifully sobering that you are completely ignorant of this fact.

    - - - Updated - - -

    The liars that are claiming 97% agree since it was the claim that is actually false.
     
  25. Wake_Up

    Wake_Up New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    TRANSLATION: I'm not interested in the truth, or anything that refutes the great me.
     

Share This Page