Madieu Superstar Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 Thank you for providing this abstract at the front of your post. It saved my the millisecond in which i would have considered that you actually read anything i wrote You're missing the point. No one is claiming that a degree from a prestigious university means someone is an expert or infallible. If a guy with an english degree from a community college could author a paper on climate change that makes it through the peer-review process and get's the scientific communities stamp of a approval to be published in a reputable journal it would be perfectly credible. If, at the end of the day, your position is, "These guys, in a semi-related field, 40 years ago, were a little bit wrong about something, so therefore no one really knows anything at all and everything else that's been said in the last 40 years is subject to my completely baseless opinion" then i don't know what to tell you. Thank you for providing this abstract at the front of your post. It saved my the millisecond in which i would have considered that you actually read anything i wrote You're missing the point. No one is claiming that a degree from a prestigious university means someone is an expert or infallible. If a guy with an english degree from a community college could author a paper on climate change that makes it through the peer-review process and get's the scientific communities stamp of a approval to be published in a reputable journal it would be perfectly credible. If, at the end of the day, your position is, "These guys, in a semi-related field, 40 years ago, were a little bit wrong about something, so therefore no one really knows anything at all and everything else that's been said in the last 40 years is subject to my completely baseless opinion" then i don't know what to tell you. I'm glad you would like to play that game because then we can also throw out the "97% consensus" too. You realize the man who commissioned the study for that consensus is a cartoonist from Australia who has admitted he is not a climate scientist? You realize his website is devoted to global warming zealots, while giving no space to any "skeptics"? You realize that none of those 97% of the 20,000+ papers he reviewed mentioned anything about any dangers resulting from global warming? You realize only 1.6% of the papers studied support the theory of global warming and use numerical evidence to back up their claim? You realize even global warming "skeptics" believe man-made global warming exists, they just don't think it will result in catastrophic damage? You realize this 97% figure has nothing to with catastrophic damage resulting from global warming"? You realize that the search criteria for these 20,000+ papers didn't include the authors having to be an expert in climatology? You realize that the authors of these 20,000+ papers were never contacted to give their expanded opinions on global warming, instead the commissioner of this study and volunteers he hired went through each paper and then summarized whether or not said author believed humans were causing global warming. You realize the American Meteorology Society conducted its own study using all of its members as a peer group and the consensus was significantly smaller? In other words, the zealot who ran this study is okay because he agrees with you, but any contradicting thoughts, theories, studies, opinions are biased and should be disqualified immediately? At least you're keeping an open-mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madieu Superstar Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 I remember when MS wanted to debunk my studies by EPI because they got money from unions, so I'm just gonna watch the response to this post. IIRC, you posted studies commissioned by unions showing the positive impacts of unions. It was kinda stupid. If Kim Jong-Un commissioned a study in North Korea about his effectiveness as a leader, what do you think the findings would be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 I'm glad you would like to play that game because then we can also throw out the "97% consensus" too. You realize the man who commissioned the study for that consensus is a cartoonist from Australia who has admitted he is not a climate scientist? You realize his website is devoted to global warming zealots, while giving no space to any "skeptics"? You realize that none of those 97% of the 20,000+ papers he reviewed mentioned anything about any dangers resulting from global warming? You realize only 1.6% of the papers studied support the theory of global warming and use numerical evidence to back up their claim? You realize even global warming "skeptics" believe man-made global warming exists, they just don't think it will result in catastrophic damage? You realize this 97% figure has nothing to with catastrophic damage resulting from global warming"? You realize that the search criteria for these 20,000+ papers didn't include the authors having to be an expert in climatology? You realize that the authors of these 20,000+ papers were never contacted to give their expanded opinions on global warming, instead the commissioner of this study and volunteers he hired went through each paper and then summarized whether or not said author believed humans were causing global warming. Sources? You realize the American Meteorology Society conducted its own study using all of its members as a peer group and the consensus was significantly smaller? Link? What was the consensus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 IIRC, you posted studies commissioned by unions showing the positive impacts of unions. It was kinda stupid. If Kim Jong-Un commissioned a study in North Korea about his effectiveness as a leader, what do you think the findings would be? And you posted an op-ed piece written by someone who works for a company who gets paid to debunk global warming. Kinda stupid when you think about it.. Wouldn't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 IIRC, you posted studies commissioned by unions showing the positive impacts of unions. It was kinda stupid. If Kim Jong-Un commissioned a study in North Korea about his effectiveness as a leader, what do you think the findings would be? You don't IIRC then. I posted a article showing the increased disparity in wages between the top and bottom with the decrease in union membership, and EPI isn't the only source that shows that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 Seems like everything is caused by global warming: Allergies: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/14/blame-climate-change-for-your-terrible-seasonal-allergies.html Drought: http://sfist.com/2014/04/25/california_drought_caused_by_climat.php Tornadoes: http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/374496/tornadoes-extreme-weather-and-climate-change Rape: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/climate-change-murder-rape Snow Storms: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/01/global-warming-janus-snow Gun Violence: http://www.westernjournalism.com/left-wing-nut-global-warming-is-driving-up-gun-violence-in-chicago/ Depression: http://www.salon.com/2013/12/11/climate_change_could_cause_depression_and_anxiety_says_study_partner/ Prostitution: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/296679-dems-warn-climate-change-could-drive-women-to-transactional-sex Alzheimer's: http://www.itnonline.com/content/global-warming-and-alzheimer%E2%80%99s-disease Health of Homeless: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704276/ HIV: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059969539 Mental Illness & Cancer: http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/04/global-warming-causes-mental-illness-cancer/ Terrorism: http://cdn.defenseone.com/defenseone/interstitial.html?v=2.1.1&rf=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defenseone.com%2Fideas%2F2014%2F05%2Fhow-climate-change-affects-terrorism%2F84175%2F Poverty: http://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/climatechange/suffering-the-science-case-studies Typhoons: http://www.thenation.com/blog/177111/yes-typhoon-haiyan-was-caused-climate-change Hurricanes: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-is-causing-more-hurricanes-8212584.html War: http://www.nationofchange.org/new-study-suggests-climate-change-cause-war-1314289484 Influenza: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/29/1510991/climate-change-and-the-flu-warm-winters-followed-by-severe-flu-seasons/ Cold Weather: http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/ Burglary: http://grist.org/list/climate-change-is-going-to-cause-1-3-million-extra-burglaries-before-2099/ Murder: http://www.salon.com/2013/08/01/increased_murder_and_war_linked_to_climate_change/ Acne: http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/13657/global-warming-causes-acne/greg-pollowitz STD's: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/03/it-has-begun-junk-scientists-claim-global-warming-causes-stds/ Earthquakes: http://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/scientists-earthquakes-can-be-caused-by-global-warming/ Volcanoes: http://www.livescience.com/25936-climate-change-causes-volcanism.html Chocolate Shortage: http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/3606-climate-change-could-cause-chocolate-shortage Bad Beer: http://www.popsci.com/article/science/how-global-warming-will-affect-your-beer Car Accidents: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/12/300-accidents-caused-by-global-warming.html Bad Economies: http://coastalcare.org/2014/03/climate-change-will-slow-economies-cause-irreversible-damage-un-report/ Less Pirates: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/ Heroin Addiction: http://www.greenbang.com/climate-change-causes-heroin-addiction_11024.html UFO Sightings: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2261941/British-UFO-sightings-at-bizarre-levels.html Cougar Attacks: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c5e6120a-be10-4497-8f32-cd8585e5ca33&k=51234 I think you get the idea... I just saw this BS.. Almost all those links are from climate change debunkers using outlandish quotes from god knows where to make global warming sound stupid. The links I posted are from respected sources and serious articles, not a bunch of propaganda. I actually tried to read through most of them, because I always read the shit people post to support their statements.. That is until I realize they have no problem wasting my time with bullshit. Either you don't know the difference or you don't care because most of those were ridiculous. If you want me to treat your opinion with respect and take the time to read and consider your responses then don't do shit like that again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mullichicken25 Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 I'm glad you would like to play that game because then we can also throw out the "97% consensus" too. You realize the man who commissioned the study for that consensus is a cartoonist from Australia who has admitted he is not a climate scientist? You realize his website is devoted to global warming zealots, while giving no space to any "skeptics"? You realize that none of those 97% of the 20,000+ papers he reviewed mentioned anything about any dangers resulting from global warming? You realize only 1.6% of the papers studied support the theory of global warming and use numerical evidence to back up their claim? You realize even global warming "skeptics" believe man-made global warming exists, they just don't think it will result in catastrophic damage? You realize this 97% figure has nothing to with catastrophic damage resulting from global warming"? You realize that the search criteria for these 20,000+ papers didn't include the authors having to be an expert in climatology? You realize that the authors of these 20,000+ papers were never contacted to give their expanded opinions on global warming, instead the commissioner of this study and volunteers he hired went through each paper and then summarized whether or not said author believed humans were causing global warming. You realize the American Meteorology Society conducted its own study using all of its members as a peer group and the consensus was significantly smaller? In other words, the zealot who ran this study is okay because he agrees with you, but any contradicting thoughts, theories, studies, opinions are biased and should be disqualified immediately? At least you're keeping an open-mind. Not sure where you're getting your information from but I'm going to continue to believe the paper from the peer reviewed environmental research journal that examine other peer reviewed papers (and surveyed authors of said papers) regarding a consensus about human's role in global warming.http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article Show me a paper with comparable credentials that argues anything else and I'll gladly take a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 It's pretty simple; the longer oil/coal/etc companies can keep the "debate" going, the longer they can avoid further regulation of the industry and keep raking in the dough. Never mind that the overwhelming majority of people who actually know WTF they're talking about have determined, guess what, rampant pollution is bad for the environment and is causing climate change. No, so long as they can find one random yahoo in a labcoat to say otherwise, they can convince enough people that the record flooding in low-lying parts of the world, increased severe weather, on and on and on.. It's all just a liberal conspiracy to something something hey buy a SUV that gets 2 MPG because, uh, 'Murca! Jerbs! Really goes back to this whole mess: http://www.newsweek.com/2014/05/23/plots-destroy-america-251123.html Fancy that; we let educational standards go to shit and we become a nation of Luddites railing against the Ivory Tower intellectuals for daring to be more knowledgeable about something than the average person. "Sometimes smart people are wrong!" Yeah well, far less often than stupid people. There's nothing noble about ignorance. BUt by all means, let's keep debating it indefinitely. Someone will be around to hand out snorkels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madieu Superstar Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 Not sure where you're getting your information from but I'm going to continue to believe the paper from the peer reviewed environmental research journal that examine other peer reviewed papers (and surveyed authors of said papers) regarding a consensus about human's role in global warming.http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article Show me a paper with comparable credentials that argues anything else and I'll gladly take a look. Go read about skeptikalscience.com and John Cook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madieu Superstar Posted May 17, 2014 Report Share Posted May 17, 2014 I just saw this BS.. Almost all those links are from climate change debunkers using outlandish quotes from god knows where to make global warming sound stupid. The links I posted are from respected sources and serious articles, not a bunch of propaganda. I actually tried to read through most of them, because I always read the shit people post to support their statements.. That is until I realize they have no problem wasting my time with bullshit. Either you don't know the difference or you don't care because most of those were ridiculous. If you want me to treat your opinion with respect and take the time to read and consider your responses then don't do shit like that again. What are you talking about? Mother Jones is a climate debunker? Thinkprogress.org s full of skeptics?The Daily Beast doesn't believe in global warming? Are you vaguely familiar with Salon.com? The prostitution theory was started by democrats in congress. The tornado theory was brought up by Stanford and Florida State professors as well the National Climatic Data Center. The drought article referenced a study at Utah State College. The HIV theory was from a professor at the National Center for Epidemiology and Population Health at Australian National University. The cancer study was from the U.S. government, itself. Time Magazine and a writer from the Washington Post gave credence to the cold air (polar vortex) theory. The STD theory originated out of the United Nations. The Heroin theory stems from a report from the US Dept of Agriculture. You get the picture. I'm not going to go through each and every one of them for you because I have stuff to do, but what you said is an out and out lie. "Don't do shit like that again" Do what, show you how crazy this theology has become? If you don't want to read it, don't. I could care less. But this stuff is out there for every idiot to read and absorb like a sponge. It's irresponsible and it's dangerous when you consider that public opinion and public policy is potentially being shaped by it. A lot of these crazies who have come with these theories are professors at universities. How is it healthy for these kids to be exposed to this lunacy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mullichicken25 Posted May 17, 2014 Report Share Posted May 17, 2014 What are you talking about? Mother Jones is a climate debunker? Thinkprogress.org s full of skeptics?The Daily Beast doesn't believe in global warming? Are you vaguely familiar with Salon.com? The prostitution theory was started by democrats in congress. The tornado theory was brought up by Stanford and Florida State professors as well the National Climatic Data Center. The drought article referenced a study at Utah State College. The HIV theory was from a professor at the National Center for Epidemiology and Population Health at Australian National University. The cancer study was from the U.S. government, itself. Time Magazine and a writer from the Washington Post gave credence to the cold air (polar vortex) theory. The STD theory originated out of the United Nations. The Heroin theory stems from a report from the US Dept of Agriculture. You get the picture. I'm not going to go through each and every one of them for you because I have stuff to do, but what you said is an out and out lie. "Don't do shit like that again" Do what, show you how crazy this theology has become? If you don't want to read it, don't. I could care less. But this stuff is out there for every idiot to read and absorb like a sponge. It's irresponsible and it's dangerous when you consider that public opinion and public policy is potentially being shaped by it. A lot of these crazies who have come with these theories are professors at universities. How is it healthy for these kids to be exposed to this lunacy? You are confusing irresponsible media with bad science. Essentially, you've taken the bait. Next time you come across something that talks about a ridiculous study, take an extra 10 minutes of your life to a.) see if it's a real scientific study from a peer reviewed source, and b.) actually read it yourself and draw your own conclusions. You might find out that "global warming causes std's" somehow came from an economic study analyzing the disproportionate effects of natural disasters on men and women. Or that "global warming causes the flu" came from a study correlating the severity of influenza outbreaks following uncharacteristically warm winters and how to address the issue with regard to flu shot perpetration and distribution. Or don't. I think I've said about all I have to say in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madieu Superstar Posted May 17, 2014 Report Share Posted May 17, 2014 You are confusing irresponsible media with bad science. Essentially, you've taken the bait. Next time you come across something that talks about a ridiculous study, take an extra 10 minutes of your life to a.) see if it's a real scientific study from a peer reviewed source, and b.) actually read it yourself and draw your own conclusions. You might find out that "global warming causes std's" somehow came from an economic study analyzing the disproportionate effects of natural disasters on men and women. Or that "global warming causes the flu" came from a study correlating the severity of influenza outbreaks following uncharacteristically warm winters and how to address the issue with regard to flu shot perpetration and distribution. Or don't. I think I've said about all I have to say in this thread. The whole argument of global warming is based off of resulting catastrophic events such as those listed above. No one would care in the least about global warming if there were no catastrophic repercussions from it. For someone whose adamant about reading these studies thoroughly, you certainly haven't read the skeptikalscience.com 97% consensus. If you did (and I think you should) you would see that the consensus reached (based on 4,000 papers that took a position on the cause of global warming) was that humans were causing global warming (how much so, who knows). It never mentions anything about the effects of global warming on our way of life. No 97% consensus exists on that matter, yet here we are, ready and willing to take drastic action in order to combat its effects (floods, droughts wind, heat, cold, snow, and whatever else scholars believe its causing.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madieu Superstar Posted May 17, 2014 Report Share Posted May 17, 2014 You don't IIRC then. I posted a article showing the increased disparity in wages between the top and bottom with the decrease in union membership, and EPI isn't the only source that shows that. Yes you showed others and they were all commissioned by unions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 17, 2014 Report Share Posted May 17, 2014 Yes you showed others and they were all commissioned by unions No. Even the EPI stuff wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madieu Superstar Posted May 17, 2014 Report Share Posted May 17, 2014 No. Even the EPI stuff wasn't. The EPI is largely funded by unions. If I remember correctly, the eed money for its inception was entirely funded by unions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 17, 2014 Report Share Posted May 17, 2014 The EPI is largely funded by unions. If I remember correctly, the eed money for its inception was entirely funded by unions. You do realize the difference between some funding of an organization and commissioning a study right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 17, 2014 Report Share Posted May 17, 2014 Hell even former labor Secretary and economist Robert Reich said similar today. ...... HOW NOT TO READ THOMAS PIKETTY DEPARTMENT. Eduardo Porter in Wednesday's New York Times analyzed the politics of income inequality in light of Thomas Pikettys data showing inequality heading back to levels we last saw in the Gilded Age -- and concludes, pessimistically, that "maybe this means that, in the absence of war, democracy can't do much more." Baloney. Neither Porter nor, for that matter, Piketty, seems to remember that in the first three decades AFTER World War II inequality shrank, the middle class expanded, and the economy grew faster than it has since. This wasn't because the war eroded huge incomes, but because in the three decades after the war unions gained strength, the rate of taxes on the wealthy were above 70 percent, civil rights were expanded, and the nation invested a larger portion of GDP in education and infrastructure than before or since. Our collective amnesia about this period is dangerous, particularly in combination with Pikettys apparent economic determinism as stoked by popular columnists. Pessimism is a self-fulfilling prophesy. If we dont believe we can do much about inequality in the absence of war, we wont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted May 17, 2014 Report Share Posted May 17, 2014 What are you talking about? Mother Jones is a climate debunker? Thinkprogress.org s full of skeptics?The Daily Beast doesn't believe in global warming? Are you vaguely familiar with Salon.com? The prostitution theory was started by democrats in congress. The tornado theory was brought up by Stanford and Florida State professors as well the National Climatic Data Center. The drought article referenced a study at Utah State College. The HIV theory was from a professor at the National Center for Epidemiology and Population Health at Australian National University. The cancer study was from the U.S. government, itself. Time Magazine and a writer from the Washington Post gave credence to the cold air (polar vortex) theory. The STD theory originated out of the United Nations. The Heroin theory stems from a report from the US Dept of Agriculture. You get the picture. I'm not going to go through each and every one of them for you because I have stuff to do, but what you said is an out and out lie. "Don't do shit like that again" Do what, show you how crazy this theology has become? If you don't want to read it, don't. I could care less. But this stuff is out there for every idiot to read and absorb like a sponge. It's irresponsible and it's dangerous when you consider that public opinion and public policy is potentially being shaped by it. A lot of these crazies who have come with these theories are professors at universities. How is it healthy for these kids to be exposed to this lunacy? Ok fine. then I'll go through each one.. Seems like everything is caused by global warming: Allergies: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/14/blame-climate-change-for-your-terrible-seasonal-allergies.html This article is simply about how warmer temperatures might cause a longer or earlier growing season which in turn may affect people with seasonal allergies... It's a stupid fluff piece, but basically straight forward. What it is not, is making a claim that global warming causes allergies. Drought: http://sfist.com/2014/04/25/california_drought_caused_by_climat.php This is a THEORETICAL RESEARCH PAPER concerning the droughts in California. This may not be attributed to global warming, but it's the kind of thing that could be caused by global warming.. I'm going to paste the "BUT.."to this piece which is half the article.. " the study, by Simon Wang of Utah State, which will be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, is based on computer simulations, physics and historical data, but is "not as detailed and doesn't involve numerous computer model simulations as more formal attribution studies." And, yes, there's some disagreement about all this.The study, already much talked about in meteorological circles, is an offshoot of a growing and still not completely accepted subfield of climate research linking real-time weather extremes to changes in the jet stream and connecting those changes to man-made global warming. Several outside scientists partly praised the work, but were also cautious about jumping to conclusions and not in full agreement." Again, no one is drawing a concrete conclusion here. It's an interesting study that indicates that more research is warranted, and that's all it claims to be. Tornadoes: http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/374496/tornadoes-extreme-weather-and-climate-change I'm not sure what's so surprising about the idea that warmer weather/longer warm seasons may have an affect on severe weather. It's generally accepted in meteorology that heat=energy as far as storms are concerned. There is also plenty of statistical data showing that severe weather has been on the rise globally. Rape: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/climate-change-murder-rape Again, this is another fluff piece which uses the concept that crime increases in an area as the temperatures rise. Any cop will tell you the summer us busier than the winter. There are lots of reasons for this which the article goes into, such as frequency of open windows, increased foot traffic/loitering etc. The author of the study makes some pretty questionable hard line correlations between slightly warmer temperatures, and slightly increased crime rates (a little more than 2%). Again, no one is trying to say global warming CAUSES rape, or any other violent behavior, Snow Storms: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/01/global-warming-janus-snow This is a legitimate article whose premise is supported by recent weather data. There is nothing in here that any climate scientist or meteorologist would find disagreeable or otherwise radical. It's a decent article, you should read it. Gun Violence: http://www.westernjournalism.com/left-wing-nut-global-warming-is-driving-up-gun-violence-in-chicago/ The title of this article says it all: "Left-Wing Nut: Global Warming Is Driving Up Gun Violence in Chicago" This is the first of the debunker articles that is quoting some random wacko to make global warming sound stupid.. Just wait there are more to come... Depression: http://www.salon.com/2013/12/11/climate_change_could_cause_depression_and_anxiety_says_study_partner/ This is an incredibly stupid article which is basically just about how people who are living in an area which has sustained environmental damage/change are depressed about it. Sure, if you're home is undergoing a historic drought you are bummed. Surprise! Prostitution: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/296679-dems-warn-climate-change-could-drive-women-to-transactional-sex Wait! Are you trying to suggest that a politician may do/say something stupid and dramatic to get some press? Shame on you sir! Alzheimer's: http://www.itnonline.com/content/global-warming-and-alzheimer%E2%80%99s-disease This article actually draws absolutely NO link between alzheimers and global warming.. It makes some sort of strange allusion to the way global warming is/was perceived by the public. In fact, it seems the only reason global warming is even mentioned is to draw views. Did you even read these? Of course not, because you are content to waste my time with bull shit. Health of Homeless: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704276/ This article is merely raising the QUESTION of how the health of the homeless might be impacted. It's not drawing any conclusions and is merely something that should be looked into,, Those damn scientists, always asking questions and looking into shit "To date, there have been no papers reviewing the impacts of climate change on the homeless population. This paper provides a framework for understanding the nature of such an impact. We review four pathways: increased heat waves, increased air pollution, increased severity of floods and storms, and the changing distribution of West Nile Virus. We emphasize the need for further debate and research in this field." HIV: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059969539 This article makes no claim at all about global warming causing HIV. It simply goes into the affects severe weather, drought and poverty have on aids populations and the spread of the disease. Again, nothing crazy here. Mental Illness & Cancer: http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/04/global-warming-causes-mental-illness-cancer/ Another debunker article quoting an NIH request for a research grant to study the possible affects of global warming on these things. No one is making any definitive claims here.. More scientists asking questions and shit. Here is a quote from the article which highlights it's position on the matter. "The rather comical details are outlined in report (A Human Health Perspective on Climate Change), justifying the need to keep researching climate change, issued by the National Institute of Health." Terrorism: http://cdn.defenseone.com/defenseone/interstitial.html?v=2.1.1&rf=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defenseone.com%2Fideas%2F2014%2F05%2Fhow-climate-change-affects-terrorism%2F84175%2F Another article pointing out that when people are poor and suffering bad shit happens more often. It draws parallels between extremist activity and poverty. It then makes further correlations between extreme weather events and increased poverty.. This article was written by some Iraq war vet with absolutely no credentials in either Climatology or Meteorology, nor any other relevant field. Poverty: http://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/climatechange/suffering-the-science-case-studies Yep, severe weather causes poverty, just ask anyone affected by Katrina if this is true of false. You are surprised by this claim? Typhoons: http://www.thenation.com/blog/177111/yes-typhoon-haiyan-was-caused-climate-change Just like with tornadoes, this isn't radical or surprising. Considering a typhoon is the exact same thing as a hurricane but in a different hemisphere, I think you can guess what I have to say about the next one on your list. Hurricanes: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-is-causing-more-hurricanes-8212584.html Yep, you guessed it, warmer weather indeed causes stronger storms.. Once again, I don't know what to tell you if you dispute this. Maybe do some reading? War: http://www.nationofchange.org/new-study-suggests-climate-change-cause-war-1314289484 This article by Nature makes the surprising assertion that nations experiencing severe drought are more likely to be involved in violent confilct.. Color me surprised. Influenza: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/29/1510991/climate-change-and-the-flu-warm-winters-followed-by-severe-flu-seasons/ Again, no one is trying to make the ridiculous claim that global warming is causing the flu. This article merely about a CDC study on the affects of milder winters on the following flu season. This is in reaction to things that have happened, attempting to find an explanation. Surprise! The CDC cares about influenza outbreaks and what affects them. Cold Weather: http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/ Again, this is only surprising to someone who is confused by the concept of global warming. It is about the Polar Vortex, and how warmer polar temperatures are causing this to expand, which spreads colder air from the polar regions. This is something that is actually happening, not some computer simulation. This goes back to the hgeneral principle of "just because it's colder in Ohio doesn't mean the average global temperature isn't increasing. Not sure why you keep referencing articles about climate changes in a climate change debate as some sort of crazy assertion, but you do. Burglary: http://grist.org/list/climate-change-is-going-to-cause-1-3-million-extra-burglaries-before-2099/ This article references the exact same ideas as your "Global warming causes Rape" article above. More crime happens in warmer weather. For some reason you decided to split these all into separate concepts, just like how you made separate links to Hurricanes and Typhoons even though they are the exact same thing. I assume it's because you are trying to make your point look stronger than it actually is, and because of course, you don;t give a shit about wasting my time on more bull shit. Murder: http://www.salon.com/2013/08/01/increased_murder_and_war_linked_to_climate_change/ Same as above.. Bull shit waste of my time. Acne: http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/13657/global-warming-causes-acne/greg-pollowitz Another debunker article. It is a slam piece quoting god knows who to make global warming sound dumb. Here is the relevant quote about the article. This blurb is the only thing that mentions acne.. "A huge list of phenomena warmists have attributed to “global climate change” can be found at this Web site. One glance blows you away. It includes everything from “acne” to “yellow fever,” with “short-nosed dogs endangered” in between." Once again, a complete bull shit waste of my time. STD's: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/03/it-has-begun-junk-scientists-claim-global-warming-causes-stds/ Yet another debunker article which is quoting a supposed something or other from the UN.. I have no idea what it is because there is no link or anything else to back up it's claims. Did this UN report even exist, I have no idea. I'll just put the whole thing up because it's so short. "The junk scientists now claim non-existent global warming causes the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. IPS.org reported, via Tom Nelson: UNITED NATIONS, Mar 9 (IPS/TerraViva) – The negative fallout from climate change is having a devastatingly lopsided impact on women compared to men, from higher death rates during natural disasters to heavier household and care burdens. In the 1991 cyclone disasters that killed 140,000 in Bangladesh, 90 percent of victims were reportedly women; in the 2004 Asian Tsunami, an estimated 70 to 80 percentof overall deaths were women… …In neighbouring Uganda, the food crises associated with climate change have been linked to higher rates of early marriage for girls, as they are exchanged for dowry or bride price. These “famine marriages” – as they are called – not only lead to girls dropping out of school, but also make them vulnerable to sexually transmitted infections and related reproductive complications." Earthquakes: http://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/scientists-earthquakes-can-be-caused-by-global-warming/ This article references a study in National Geographic that notes increased seismic activity in Alaska during the summer and makes the supposition that perhaps ice sheets are able contain tectonic movement, thus preventing some small earthquakes. No where does it say that global warming causes earthquakes. Waste of my time. Volcanoes: http://www.livescience.com/25936-climate-change-causes-volcanism.html This article is about increased volcanic activity through the history of the planet that coincided with higher sea levels. It's about what HAS happened in the past and attempts to make some projections for the future. It's far from alarmist though which is apparent in this from the article. "The findings were based only on natural changes in climate, so it's not clear whether human-caused climate change would have the same impact, Jegen said. And if it did, she added, the effect wouldn't be seen for centuries." Chocolate Shortage: http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/3606-climate-change-could-cause-chocolate-shortage This article is about how the areas in Africa where half of the worlds chocolate comes from are becoming unsuitable for growing it due to climate change that IS ALREADY HAPPENING. It doesn't make any claims about global warming at all, let alone human caused global warming. Again, this is less about creating global warming controversy at it is finding a solution to an existing problem. Are you arguing against the existence of climate change in it's entirety? "The study proposes finding new heat and drought resistant crops that could thrive in West Africa, while helping to transition cocoa production to more suitable areas." Bad Beer: http://www.popsci.com/article/science/how-global-warming-will-affect-your-beer A fluff piece about the quality of the barley crop in water stressed areas.. A waste of time. Car Accidents: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/12/300-accidents-caused-by-global-warming.html This is a blog that references no scientific study or research of any kind. Instead it's some guy who posts some pictures of bad winter weather and car accidents with the headline "300 accidents caused by global warming". Apparently the guy had a rough drive home from work during a winter storm and comes to the conclusion "I blame global warming!" Are you fucking kidding me!? Yet another complete waste of time. Get the fuck out of here man! Bad Economies: http://coastalcare.org/2014/03/climate-change-will-slow-economies-cause-irreversible-damage-un-report/ The UN comes to the shocking conclusion that climate change might mean economic distress in some areas and suggests world leaders may want to discuss this possibility. Shocking! Less Pirates: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/ OH MY FUCKING GOD ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!@ This is a fucking satirical article from the CHURCH OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER. An open letter to "The School Board" about the affect of PIRATES ON GLOBAL WARMING. That's right, this "letter" makes the assertion that the decline of pirates statistically correlates to global temperature. Fucking wasting my time. Asshole Heroin Addiction: http://www.greenbang.com/climate-change-causes-heroin-addiction_11024.html Poppies are becoming more potent. Does this have something to do with CO2? It's a theory. Again, no one is seriously saying that global warming causes heroin addiction. UFO Sightings: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2261941/British-UFO-sightings-at-bizarre-levels.html This article notes the ridiculously high amounts of UFO sightings in the UK. This is a fact that has happened. There is this blurb in the article which is the only mention of global warming "Some experts believe it could be linked to global warming and craft from outer space are appearing because they are concerned about what man is doing to this planet." It doesn't say who these "experts" are or why they think that way.. Another waste of my time. Cougar Attacks: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c5e6120a-be10-4497-8f32-cd8585e5ca33&k=51234 Again, no one is making the claim that global warming is causing cougar attacks. Cougar attacks are up, and there are a differing reasons for this.. None of this is projection or propoganda. It's about the facts concerning the higher couger attack rates, the recent warmer winters and human encroachment on natural habitats. Here is the part of the article that might possibly be construed as being about climate change. "The province’s cougar population has jumped this year because recent warm winters have pushed up the population of deer, elk and moose -- the cougars’ natural prey, said Darcy Whiteside with Alberta Sustainable Resource Development." “These are natural fluctuations,” Whiteside said on Wednesday.“But they’re compounded by the fact that municipalities are expanding into natural areas. A lot more people are living, camping and hiking in those areas, too.” OOH! "Alarmist"! I think you get the idea... Yeah, I get the idea.. You are completely willing to waste my time/and or try to perpetrate a fraud by pasting a bunch of links with misleading labels and questionable content to try and prove your point.. This is the "shit" I don't want you to do again. I have to admit there were less "debunker" articles than half. But I also admit that I clicked on the most outrageous of your links first, and happened to click on all the debunker articles. After going through your list though, I am no less convinced that your post is full of shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madieu Superstar Posted May 19, 2014 Report Share Posted May 19, 2014 Ok fine. then I'll go through each one.. Yeah, I get the idea.. You are completely willing to waste my time/and or try to perpetrate a fraud by pasting a bunch of links with misleading labels and questionable content to try and prove your point.. This is the "shit" I don't want you to do again. I have to admit there were less "debunker" articles than half. But I also admit that I clicked on the most outrageous of your links first, and happened to click on all the debunker articles. After going through your list though, I am no less convinced that your post is full of shit. A fraud? That's comical, you were the one touting the 97% consensus myth despite the fact that this "consensus" was accumulated by a zealot who doesn;t allow dissenting opinions published on his climate change website. Despite the fact that it mis-characterized the position of the authors of the papers it was based on: http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html Despite the fact that out of the 11,944 papers used for the "study", only 34% actually addressed the question of whether climate change was caused by humans. http://scottjhiggins.com/scientists-are-not-agreed-that-humans-are-causing-climate-change-what-a-load-of-bollocks/ Despite the fact that these papers were never measured on the basis of whether said "climate change" posed imminent catastrophic & hazardous effects on the population. I'm wasting your time, yet you provide me with a mythical percentage as a means of making me believe it's settled science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 I'm wasting your time, yet you provide me with a mythical percentage as a means of making me believe it's settled science. Let's pretend it's not. So what? The EPA, emission standards, wildlife conservation all goes out the window? There are a hundred other reasons to ween ourselves off fossil fuels, so why keep pushing this red herring debate about science that's been proven and reviewed extensively? OK, so science uses a lot of big words that make some people feel inferior. Just for shits & grins, let's say there's no climate change at all and also that moon fairies are going to bring us all delicious fresh-baked pies. You win. Does that mean it's ok for me to dump my used motor oil down the sink? No? Are you sure we shouldn't spend a few years debating whether it's only really bad and not outright terrible? Yeah I'm listening, explain to me the science behind your argument while I throw a few more old tires on the BBQ. Are you SURE that it's toxic? I mean, are you a chemist? :facepalm: This glorification of the know-nothing, anti-academic Bubba Shitstick "real American" is going to send us into another Dark Age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 Let's pretend it's not. So what? The EPA, emission standards, wildlife conservation all goes out the window? There are a hundred other reasons to ween ourselves off fossil fuels, so why keep pushing this red herring debate about science that's been proven and reviewed extensively? OK, so science uses a lot of big words that make some people feel inferior. Just for shits & grins, let's say there's no climate change at all and also that moon fairies are going to bring us all delicious fresh-baked pies. You win. Does that mean it's ok for me to dump my used motor oil down the sink? No? Are you sure we shouldn't spend a few years debating whether it's only really bad and not outright terrible? Yeah I'm listening, explain to me the science behind your argument while I throw a few more old tires on the BBQ. Are you SURE that it's toxic? I mean, are you a chemist? :facepalm: This glorification of the know-nothing, anti-academic Bubba Shitstick "real American" is going to send us into another Dark Age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincyInDC Posted June 30, 2014 Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 [attachment=1387:titanic.jpg] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|kennethmw| Posted June 30, 2014 Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 titanic.jpg :lmao: :lmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.