Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fake News Strikes Again: Florence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    That's exactly what the debate between so-called "experts" is. How much influence humans have on climate and from what causes. Only the Gorebal Warming bunch, a small fraction of the whole, unquestioningly accept the anthropogenic CO2 and nothing else argument.





    For the vast majority, the consensus is out on causality when it comes to climate change.


    ...
    Those graphs are worthless, and they also misrepresent the 97% claim. I guess this is why you posted them without providing the source.

    According to the small font at the bottom, someone searched the term "global warming" and "global warming change" and included as part of the supposedly scientific debate journal articles that may have nothing to do with the causality of global warming or journal articles from scientists that may have no connection to climatology.

    According to NASA, the claim is that 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree on the issue on global warming

    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:



    The same link also gives a link of 18 American scientific societies which have published statements about the contribution of human emissions to global warming and the need to control such emissions








    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by pamak View Post

      Those graphs are worthless, and they also misrepresent the 97% claim. I guess this is why you posted them without providing the source.

      According to the small font at the bottom, someone searched the term "global warming" and "global warming change" and included as part of the supposedly scientific debate journal articles that may have nothing to do with the causality of global warming or journal articles from scientists that may have no connection to climatology.
      No, they don't. Graphs like this one misrepresent the claim:





      The sources for the graphs I gave are on the graphs. As for your opinion about their validity, meh. Aside from that, when someone says "97% of scientists agree..." that sort of includes scientists outside the climatology field. Also, many of the "leading ones" in that field are proven liars.

      https://realclimatescience.com/2016/...en-is-a-fraud/

      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-chiropractor/

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/...s-are-a-fraud/

      https://principia-scientific.org/bre...ey-stick-mann/

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorb.../#2f9656973ccb

      According to NASA, the claim is that 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree on the issue on global warming

      https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

      Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:
      So now it's just climate scientists hum? Well, since those guys include some very prominent frauds, have been nearly 100% wrong on every prediction they've made about climate change, I'd say they don't have much credibility. Now that NASA is out of the climate change business, they are no longer a front organization for that nonsense in any case.
      The same link also gives a link of 18 American scientific societies which have published statements about the contribution of human emissions to global warming and the need to control such emissions
      So? There are lots of "scientific societies" with a vested or political interest in anthropogenic climate change. That doesn't mean they're right.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

        No, they don't. Graphs like this one misrepresent the claim:





        The sources for the graphs I gave are on the graphs. As for your opinion about their validity, meh. Aside from that, when someone says "97% of scientists agree..." that sort of includes scientists outside the climatology field. Also, many of the "leading ones" in that field are proven liars.

        https://realclimatescience.com/2016/...en-is-a-fraud/

        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-chiropractor/

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/...s-are-a-fraud/

        https://principia-scientific.org/bre...ey-stick-mann/

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorb.../#2f9656973ccb



        So now it's just climate scientists hum? Well, since those guys include some very prominent frauds, have been nearly 100% wrong on every prediction they've made about climate change, I'd say they don't have much credibility. Now that NASA is out of the climate change business, they are no longer a front organization for that nonsense in any case.


        So? There are lots of "scientific societies" with a vested or political interest in anthropogenic climate change. That doesn't mean they're right.
        I did not dispute the graphs. I disputed the claim that supposedly about 70% of papers are somehow "sceptical" regarding the human contribution to the global warming". There is nothing in the graph to suggest that! All it shows is that there are many papers which did not take in position regarding the causes of global warming! This can very well be a result of studies that were NOT interested in investigating causation but wanted to research other aspects of global warming.

        And who said that "now it's just climate scientists."? Just because YOU imply that there is a shift of the claim it does not make it true. It is as much likely that from the beginning "sceptics" created a strawman argument to misrepresent the initial claim.

        As for your links, I did not see any credentials there to make an impression on me. If this is your answer to the link I provided from NASA, it must show something regarding the credibility of the sceptics.
        Also, feel free to find a number of scientific societies which has issued a public statement supporting the sceptics. I mean if 70% of scientists do not embrace the claims we here from the alarmists there must be many such statements, right?
        Feel free also to show that the sceptics are not linked to political interests...
        Last edited by pamak; 21 Sep 18, 22:00.
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by pamak View Post

          I did not dispute the graphs. I disputed the claim that supposedly about 70% of papers are somehow "sceptical" regarding the human contribution to the global warming". There is nothing in the graph to suggest that! All it shows is that there are many papers which did not take in position regarding the causes of global warming! This can very well be a result of studies that were NOT interested in investigating causation but wanted to research other aspects of global warming.
          And, that is not equal to "consensus."

          con·sen·sus

          [kənˈsensəs]




          NOUN






          That means the majority of papers by not directly agreeing with anthropogenic climate change were not in "consensus" with that finding. Rather, they were still on the fence and skeptical. That makes the 97% number an utter fabrication.

          And who said that "now it's just climate scientists."? Just because YOU imply that there is a shift of the claim it does not make it true. It is as much likely that there was from the beginning "sceptics" created a strawman argument to misrepresent the initial claim.
          You did:
          Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals
          1
          show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree
          *
          :
          Prove the skeptics are nothing but strawmen then.

          As for your links, I did not see any credentials there to make an impression on me. If this is your answer to the link I provided from NASA, it must show something regarding the credibility of the sceptics.
          Also, feel free to find a number of scientific societies which has issued a public statement supporting the sceptics. I mean if 70% of scientists do not embrace the claims we here from the alarmists there must be many such statements, right?
          Feel free also to show that the sceptics are not linked to political interests...
          I already posted links that do all of that. There are more on this site in the various environmental threads as well.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

            And, that is not equal to "consensus."

            [FONT=&amp][SIZE=40px]
            [/COLOR]

            [/COLOR][/LIST]
            [/COLOR]

            That means the majority of papers by not directly agreeing with anthropogenic climate change were not in "consensus" with that finding. Rather, they were still on the fence and skeptical. That makes the 97% number an utter fabrication.



            You did:


            Prove the skeptics are nothing but strawmen then.



            I already posted links that do all of that. There are more on this site in the various environmental threads as well.
            If you want to dispute the claim that 97% of actively publishing climate scientists who agree about the impact o humans on global warming does not show "consensus", feel free to do so.Playing semantics is the usual defense.


            If one wants to find "sceptics," (and I am talking about real scientists and not the type of flat earth bloggers we see these days), he can do it for almost every established scientific theory. Here is one real physicist who challenged the Big Bang Theory.

            http://archive.boston.com/bostonglob...ry_skeptic_84/

            Also, it is an unreasonable conclusion that those who published articles about the global warming were "sceptics" since they did not adopt a position in their paper. As I said, one can publish an article about global warming that does not study its causes. An economist who may want to talk about economic impacts, will not have the expertise or even the desire to address causality and start talking about things that are not related to his field.

            As for the supposedly credentials of your sources, I will have to go with what you post here which is not impressive at all. From your link

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorb.../#2d66bcb73ccb



            I am a Research Fellow in the Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies. I cover both current legal issues, particularly Supreme Court cases, and broader philosophical and historical issues in the law.

            Expert my a**.....
            Last edited by pamak; 21 Sep 18, 20:44.
            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by pamak View Post


              As for the supposedly credentials of your sources, I will have to go with what you post here which is not impressive at all. From your link

              Expert my a**.....
              Then by all means list the experts you claim are correct.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                Then by all means list the experts you claim are correct.

                The statements from their scientific organizations shows these views quite sufficiently and in a much more convincing way than the list of your political hacks who work for the CATO Institute

                Notice that the statement of 97% of actively publishing climatologists who agree on the impact of human activities on the global warming comes from NASA. The source has sufficient credibility and stands by itself without the need to list the thousands of authors who adopted a position on the issue of global warming.
                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by pamak View Post


                  The statements from their scientific organizations shows these views quite sufficiently and in a much more convincing way than the list of your political hacks who work for the CATO Institute

                  Notice that the statement of 97% of actively publishing climatologists who agree on the impact of human activities on the global warming comes from NASA. The source has sufficient credibility and stands by itself without the need to list the thousands of authors who adopted a position on the issue of global warming.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                    What burden of proof ?


                    A source which is considered credible regarding scientific issues like NASA claims that 97% of actively publishing climatologists agree regarding the human impact on the global warming. I simply showed that your sources misrepresented the original claim. If you want to doubt NASA's claims feel free to do so. Flat earth's do this thing also.

                    On top of that there is sufficient evidence of a broad scientific consensus in the form of the various public statements issued by different scientific bodies. Apparently, you did not bother to read the link


                    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

                    AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
                    Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations


                    "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

                    • American Association for the Advancement of Science
                      "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)
                      3

                    • American Chemical Society
                      "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)
                      4

                    • American Geophysical Union
                      "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)
                      5

                    • American Medical Association
                      "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)
                      6

                    • American Meteorological Society
                      "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)
                      7

                    • American Physical Society
                      "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)
                      8

                    • The Geological Society of America
                      "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)
                      9
                    SCIENCE ACADEMIES
                    International academies: Joint statement


                    "Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

                    • U.S. National Academy of Sciences
                      "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)
                      11
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

                    • U.S. Global Change Research Program
                      "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)
                      12
                    INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

                    • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
                      “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”
                      13

                      “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14
                    OTHER RESOURCES
                    List of worldwide scientific organizations


                    The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
                    http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

                    Funny how the 70% of "doubters" could not convince their peers to issue a joint statement to support such skepticism But there is an explanation for that. When such doubters are ignorant bloggers or politics hacks like the CATO employee in your link you posted before, who have no clue about science, their opinion does not count...
                    Last edited by pamak; 21 Sep 18, 21:40.
                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Sharks In The Water? FEMA Tries To Fight 'Fake News' As Florence Hits

                      FEMA is rolling out a new tool as it begins to deal with now-tropical storm Florence. It's a rumor-control webpage.

                      Unfounded rumors — what might be called "fake news" — have been a problem in coping with recent disasters, according to Gary Webb, a professor and chair of emergency management and disaster science at the University of North Texas.

                      "Disasters do create a great deal of uncertainty, confusion and anxiety," Webb said, "and, as a result, there is the potential for rumors to propagate."

                      For example, Webb said, during Hurricane Katrina, "Vicious rumors circulated about violent assaults happening at the Superdome and convention center."

                      Entirely unfounded, he said, they nonetheless "painted a picture of lawlessness and disorder that profoundly shaped public perceptions of the disaster and its victims."
                      https://www.npr.org/2018/09/14/64793...-florence-hits

                      Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

                      Prayers.

                      BoRG

                      http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X