Is there anyone here who actually AGREES with the scientific consensus?

[Endora]

As based on this survery -

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

97% of active publishing climatologists on the subject of climate change seem to agree. The further you get away from the science, the less confidence you get.

This would suggest to me that as some people like to use as an excuse, climate is very complicated. However there's a number of reasons why we can still make predictions regardless.

I'm a little concerned that "conservative" automatically has to mean anti-science, or at least anti-AGW, especially with the conservative mantra of personal responsibility and how we affect the world around us, and thus would like to hope there are at least some who do not follow the stereotype(I know a few lefties who are, perhaps annoyingly to me, deniers).

I'm moderately knowledge about the ins and outs on this, so I can answer a lot of questions people might have and clear up some myths. However I'm not a climatologist, so if someone find a particularly new and awkward article I might not be able to.

I'm going to start out by saying it's wrong the forum's rules outright tell you to accept climategate as a valid scandal. Which is kind of ironic since people are concerned about having the AGW agenda pushed on them...

[BEG]

I do not believe that there is actually the consensus that you claim.  Because I don't blindly believe what you are saying or what others who have something to gain by it say, does not make me anti-science.  How do you explain warming/cooling trends before the industrial world was up and running?  How do you explain the "Man-Made Ice Age"  that was predicted in the 70's that never materialized?  How do you explain the terribly embarrassing scandal of all those emails that were released saying basically, they cooked the books?


I'll be more trusting in "science" when the politics are taken out of it.


 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I'm a little concerned that "conservative" automatically has to mean anti-science

I'm going to start out by saying it's wrong the forum's rules outright tell you to accept climategate as a valid scandal. Which is kind of ironic since people are concerned about having the AGW agenda pushed on them...

you and what you think is wrong.

This forum is filled with articles about bogus temperature station readings, dumped data, non-melting glaciers and railroad engineers making money hand over fist to secure the next few billion dollars in research funding to tell the politicians why they have to start seizing more of our society and holding it over our heads.

I see no reason to give the likes of you one more ounce of power to dictate to the rest of us how to live our lives.

[Mike220]

What did I miss? Sorry, I was out clubbing baby seals with a burning tire filled with gasoline because they found where I dumped a bunch of empty plastic bottles underneath the North Pole.

[RightCoast]

What did I miss? Sorry, I was out clubbing baby seals with a burning tire filled with gasoline because they found where I dumped a bunch of empty plastic bottles underneath the North Pole.

You too?

[JohnnyReb]

What did I miss? Sorry, I was out clubbing baby seals with a burning tire filled with gasoline because they found where I dumped a bunch of empty plastic bottles underneath the North Pole.

Oh they are so cute when you club 'em 'tween the eyes.

[Splashdown]

Personally, I'm ROOTING for global warming. It'll give me oceanfront property.

[RightCoast]

Re: Is there anyone here who actually AGREES with the scientific consensus?

By definition consensus is not science.  And your premise that there is such consensus is flawed: Linky to the NY Post

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

By definition consensus is not science.  And your premise that there is such consensus is flawed: Linky to the NY Post

Once upon a time, heliocentrism moved against the consensus.

[Mike220]

Personally, I'm ROOTING for global warming. It'll give me oceanfront property.

That's optimism. 

[Mike220]

You too?

Yup. Were you the nuclear waste or the Styrofoam peanuts?

[Doc]

As based on this survery -

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

97% of active publishing climatologists on the subject of climate change seem to agree. The further you get away from the science, the less confidence you get.

This would suggest to me that as some people like to use as an excuse, climate is very complicated. However there's a number of reasons why we can still make predictions regardless.

I'm a little concerned that "conservative" automatically has to mean anti-science, or at least anti-AGW, especially with the conservative mantra of personal responsibility and how we affect the world around us, and thus would like to hope there are at least some who do not follow the stereotype(I know a few lefties who are, perhaps annoyingly to me, deniers).
I'm moderately knowledge about the ins and outs on this, so I can answer a lot of questions people might have and clear up some myths. However I'm not a climatologist, so if someone find a particularly new and awkward article I might not be able to.

I'm going to start out by saying it's wrong the forum's rules outright tell you to accept climategate as a valid scandal. Which is kind of ironic since people are concerned about having the AGW agenda pushed on them...

Endora.......in case you missed my comments in another thread......let's start with the assumption that I'm perfectly capable of addressing any "questions" on the issue from a scientific standpoint.....

My previous remarks to you are quoted below:

Look, before you (a newbie) become embroiled in a discussion that has been attempted by more articulate and educated lefties than yourself, I suggest that you spend some time reading ALL of the arguments that have been proffered by the  AGW alarmists here in the past, and as a quick scan will yield to you, there have been many attempts, and all have failed.......failed, because on close examination, the entire concept of AGW, and a "consensus" is so severely flawed, as to be ludicrous.

I am a scientist (albeit retired), one set of the entirely useless groups of letters behind my name on my CV, happens to be "FAAC".......just in cast you are not aware, this stands for "Fellow of the American Academy of Science".......therefore I know a bit about the subject.  So I'll start with one simple fact:

There is no such thing as a "consensus" in science.........the world was not determined to be spherical because of a majority vote........it was so determined by examining the evidence and establishing repeatable and irrefutable calculations that moved the concept from the area of "theory" into that of established, observable fact.

Although "climate science" is not my discipline, I have read EVERY paper presented at Kyoto, and Copenhagen, as well as all of the releases from the IPCC (what a collection of garbage these are), and have managed to arrive at a reasonable conclusion based on all of the "science" that has been presented in support of the "concept" of AGW (I use the word "concept", because it doesn't even meet the scientific test to be referred to as a "theory").

My conclusion is this:  There is absolutely NO pure unadulterated, unmanipulated data, which can be replicated in accordance with scientific method, and supported by corroborating geological or biological evidence to reinforce the concept (that word again) of AGW.......it simply doesn't pass the test of scientific reality......END OF DISCUSSION.

What I did find........is unquestionable evidence of a leftist cabal dedicated to establishing significant control of the world's resources (and economy), and redistributing wealth from industrialized nations to third-world ones, under the guise of capping and controlling carbon dioxide emissions, restricting use of carbon-based fuels,all of which are a natural presence in the planet's ecosystem.  Essentially, AGW is a public relations stunt of biblical proportions designed to hoodwink the uneducated and uninitiated into believing that some sort of "global emergency" exists.......it's been attempted before (although not on this scale), and failed as well.

Therefore, it is my renewed suggestion  that you aquaint yourself with the arguments presented here in the past, before you bore the hell out of us recycling all the old discredited discussions..........it will be greatly appreciated.

Oh.....and as an aside, as a moderator here, if I catch you using a reference or a link from the website www.realclimate.org  I will toss you out of this forum so fast that you will have trouble  standing up for a week (figuratively, of course)........capiche?

doc

Just so you get off on the right foot.......

doc

[RightCoast]

Yup. Were you the nuclear waste or the Styrofoam peanuts?

It was that green bubbling stuff in the metal barrels, again.

[thundley4]

It was that green bubbling stuff in the metal barrels, again.

Isn't that the stuff that makes Zombies?

[Chris_]

Yup. Were you the nuclear waste or the Styrofoam peanuts?

I thought the ecoweenies dictated that the peanuts are all cornstarch now...........

doc

[RightCoast]

I thought the ecoweenies dictated that the peanuts are all cornstarch now...........

doc

Those taste pretty gross.

[Chris_]

Those taste pretty gross.

Plus you can't get then wet like the good 'ol styrofoam ones.....if you do, you end up with "grits".

doc

[RightCoast]

Plus you can't get then wet like the good 'ol styrofoam ones.....if you do, you end up with "grits".

doc

Umm, why would you want to get either wet.

[Chris_]

Umm, why would you want to get either wet.

Err.....you were the one that brought up how they taste.......kinda hard to eat them without getting them "wet"


doc

[formerlurker]

How is it possible to be a neocon and also be anti-science?    However would we nuke mecca then? 

[JohnnyReb]

I saw a list of all those "scientist" once...people that had signed onto global warming as fact....It was loaded with doctors, lawyers, PhD's, etc....and very few knew anything about weather.

[rich_t]

Isn't that the stuff that makes Zombies?

And the teenage mutant ninja turtles.

[RightCoast]

Err.....you were the one that brought up how they taste.......kinda hard to eat them without getting them "wet"


doc

But I didn't eat the ones that go gritty. That would be gross.

[Chris_]

But I didn't eat the ones that go gritty. That would be gross.

So....you ate the styrofoam ones.......

doc

[RightCoast]

So....you ate the styrofoam ones.......

doc

Hahahaha, I twisted myself around - fun while it lasted.