User avatar
MotherJonses

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 73

Cannonpointer » 15 Sep 2016 1:32 pm » wrote: Unfortunately, you are not the only participant in the fraud you just acknowledged - so your taking responsibility doesn't change or fix the problem which you and other participants create for society. The problem is that government agencies are applying crimes committed by transgenders to heterosexuals, skewing the statistics to ENABLE those of you who believe penises belong in the girls room.

You get off the hook – blaming straight men for crimes of perversion being committed by the transgenders whose presence you assure us - on falsified statistics - is benign.

Transgenders are a minuscule part of the community, yet already these perverted freak shows are creating a statistical nightmare for their victims. But government agencies, aided by unsuspecting folks like yourself who just go along repeating the dummied-up crime stats, are skewing the statistics by laying the brutality and impropriety of transgenders on the NORMAL community.

My question for you is this: who told you that we normal people must accommodate every freak show, perv and sicko that comes down the road? It is beyond obvious at this point that transgenders are brutal bullies who beat up women and children, and/or sexually inappropriate exhibitionists who interfere with other people's legitimate privacy rights.

On what possible logic do you base the demand that we accommodate freak shows in our public spaces? It is you who have decided to label anyone who raises his or her hand and requests the label, "transgender." And what we have learned about this nebulous group is that it's a freak show. Why don't you roll up the circus tent and stop forcing this freak show on the innocent in our society? What streak of deformed nature has you clamoring for **** in girls' lockers, son?
You have shown obvious bias in this discussion. You are not calling out the possiblitlity that some may claim "feelings" to allow themselves access - you clearly believe that the issue it with the trans community.

Following from that there are two incidents that have come out on this forum. TWO out of how many times trans people have peed and pooped in peices? TWO. And you are clearly ready to convict the whole community, as you see them as "freakshows" and "pervs" and "sickos"

I have never waivered from my postions - you act like you are clutching your pearls because "won't someone think of the children" but it isn't that at all - those freakshow pervs should not be allowed to interact with the Norms huh?
Image

User avatar
MotherJonses

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 73

Cannonpointer » 14 Sep 2016 12:12 pm » wrote:Where is your difficulty with the concept? You're the hater - you're the one erasing the boundaries between the real transgendered, and any sicko who wishes to do sexual mischief in their name.
In all seriousness, please explain this. How does the argument that trans people should be allowed to use the facilities that match their gender (not physical sex) "erases boundaries" ? What would you suggest as a litmus test to determine who is for real and who is doing sexual mischief in their name? Is there some sort "certified transsexual" ID that they can receive that would allow them to use the ladies room?

Better yet, lets just tattoo the faces of rapists so we can know them by looking at them.

You have two examples of males who have misused the desire to be fair to the trans community. That two would be out of how many times that trans people just used the bathroom they wanted to without issue?

Even without a law or policy men can still walk into ladies rooms, there are not guards at the door checking who goes into which rooms. There is also nothing in place that stops those scumbags who predate on boys from accessing them in public bathrooms. It is not the idea that we should try to stop people from being hurt that I reject. It is a great idea. My issue is how the hell are you going to enforce such a notion without creating more danger, violating people's liberty , and tremendous cost.

How do you suggest we enforce this? How are you going to keep people out of the "wrong" bathrooms?
Image

User avatar
MotherJonses

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 73

kfools » 22 Aug 2016 10:30 am » wrote: Are we sure the cause is the increase in pot use? I read an article recently that claimed auto accidents were increasing all over the country. Are we sure this is causation or just correlation?

http://www.newsweek.com/2015-brought-bi ... ars-427759
according to several economists the increase is due to the lower price in gas. They have linked the price of gas to the amount and the way that people drive. Basically, when gas is cheap people drive more and some people drive more aggressivily.
Image

User avatar
MotherJonses

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 73

golfboy » 22 Aug 2016 9:25 am » wrote: Why are trying to defect from the fact that what you want, is bad for people?
You really don't care, as long as you can get high, right?
When did you become the nanny stater? Are you going to tell me how much soda I can drink next?
Image

User avatar
MotherJonses

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 73

golfboy » 22 Aug 2016 9:11 am » wrote: You need to keep up with the changing technologies.
So how many departments have this would device?
Image

User avatar
MotherJonses

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 73

golfboy » 22 Aug 2016 8:33 am » wrote:Why is it that liberal policies always end up hurting the poor and middle class?
Is it on purpose, or are they simply so inept they don't know any better?
Considering the poor and ignorant ARE their base, I think it's on purpose. The more of these people there are, the more votes they get.
Huh... Was Rand Paul a liberal? Isn't preventing the government from making laws about what adults put in their bodies a libertarian idea?
Image

User avatar
MotherJonses

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 73

Cannonpointer » 22 May 2016 8:50 am » wrote: Why DO you?

If you insist that men have the right to enter girls' showers for the comfort of midgets, I'll focus on those little bastards, babe. I'm following YOUR lead.
First, red herring. I don't want ANY man walking into my mom's shower or my wife's shower, regardless of his criminal history.
Your mom or wife? I thought you say down there that we are talking about Obama's policy? His is just for schools. You don't have to let trans people use your home bathrooms.
Cannonpointer » 22 May 2016 8:50 am » wrote: Second, everyone has to pee, regardless of their criminal history.
Arguing to make your daughters less safe because your son isn't safe is obscenely misogynistic.

If you will explain to me how opening your daughter's public shower facilities to men will make your son safer, I'll certainly pay rapt attention. Otherwise, SMFH.
First, what the **** does that MEAN, "real transgender women?"

Second, IF YOU BELIEVE SUCH AN ANIMAL EXISTS AND IS WORTHY OF DEFENSE, WHY ARE YOU WATERING DOWN THAT DEFENSE BY INCLUDING MALE PREDATORS, ALONG WITH THESE "REAL" "TRANSGENDER" "WOMEN?"

Why don't you SHARE your definition of a "real" transgender woman, and then LIMIT your demand for entry into women's facilities based on that OBJECTIVE definition, for the love of God - cat got your brain?


I didn't make the claim that preventing 'predators' in the ladies rooms would make my son less safe, nice straw man though. I complained that he was not recieving equal protection in the demands for bathroom policing. There has been no mention of protecting boys, just girls. If public bathrooms are such a dangerous place why not protect all children?

By "real" I meant a man who identifies as a woman and not one claiming that to get access to a ladies room. As it was stated that the trans themselves are not the bogey man.

As far as an objective definition of trangender it is being worked on. There are neuroanatomical differences established between men and women's brains, especially in the BSTc areas , grey and white matter studies are finding differnces in male to female trangendered brains as well. Austrialian research has made findings on the genes associated with sex hormone receptors effecting the gender identity. This is about more than feelings. .

Cannonpointer » 22 May 2016 8:50 am » wrote: Third, the edict being argued is being rolled out by Obama. If you're referring to the NC law passed as a REACTION to the insanity you're defending, you're not currently questioning a proponent of that law - though I DO prefer it to what Charlotte passed, flawed and **** though it is.
Since the discussion seemed to be about bathrooms and showers in general - I addressed all laws. I have no problem limiting this to the Obama extention of title 9 in schools. This would effect a much smaller number of women. Are adults other than teacher allowed into the student locker rooms or showers? Would an adult woman be allowed to just walk into a school girls locker room?Are adults students at elementary, middle or high schools? I would think there we are limiting ourselves to students. Showers are mainly in high school and college - so we again limit the population exposed.

The Obama edict states
"The Departments interpret Title IX to require that when a student or the student’s parent or guardian ,as appropriate ,notifies the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that differs from previous representations or records ,the school will begin treating the student consistent with the student’s gender identity .Under Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to be ingtreated consistent with their gender identity."

I don't know when the last time you went to an elementary school was - but you need to be buzzed in. They are very secure facilities. No random man, even if he says he identifies as a woman is going to be allowed access.

So, if we focus on the Obama action and reality we are talking about high school and college bathrooms; as random adults requrdless of gender are not allowed in the showers.

And if we are really just going to be talking about the Obama edict - it only applies to students. No non-student would be protected; no matter what gender they claim. Title 9 didn't apply to anyone who entered the building - just students.

So how long do you think that a teenage boy will pretend he is a teenage girl to have access that he will go to jail and be labeled for the rest of his life for abusing?
Cannonpointer » 22 May 2016 8:50 am » wrote: I'm not one to trade in false dichotomies, I will not pick between supporting **** demoncrat laws and supporting **** repuke legislative reactions - though, again, I am far less offended by what the repukes did, and would more easily live with it, as it damages the rights of fewer people.
I will grant you that the statistical number of trans people is small and this would effect a far smaller number of Americans.
Cannonpointer » 22 May 2016 8:50 am » wrote: Fourth, please name a "real transgender woman" - whatever that phrase means to you - who has been victimized in the pottie, such that we need the federal **** government to start imposing potty and shower perversion edicts on our local communities.
I cannot find a verifiable account of a student being attacked in a school rest room - but there was an assult in a McDonalds ladies room. But we are talking about the Obama Edict.
Cannonpointer » 22 May 2016 8:50 am » wrote: Fifth and finally, let it not be said I ducked a question - even one based implicitly on facts not in evidence:

If my choices are enfranchising random, unvetted men with a Sybil right to the services of battered women's shelters, a Sybil right to cruise women's and girls' locker rooms and showers, a Sybil right to become den mothers and attend camp outs for brownies and scouts, a sybil right to follow women and girls into public restrooms marked "Women," and presumably a **** Sybil right to demand the services of OB/GYNs, --- OR --- "discriminating" against some **** nutcases who SEE a **** but can't quite believe it, preferring to wallow in delusions of glandeur, that choice is an easy one.

I would put the safety of women and children over the LIVES of a few one-in-a-thousand **** freaks, much less over their goddamned comfort in the goddamned potty, sweetheart. Sorry to learn you feel otherwise - everyone has SOME affliction.
Sorry, but random, unvetted men are not protected by Title 9's protection against discrimination by sex.

Beyond that, most rapes are commited by men known to the victim - not strangers.
According the FBI and the CDC rape locations are as follows:



Perpetrators home
30.9 %

Victims home
26.6 %

Perpetrator and victims shared home
10.1 %

At a party
7.2 %

In a vehicle
7.2 %

Outdoors
3.6 %

In a bar
2.2 %


http://www.statisticbrain.com/rape-statistics/

are you claiming that the fact that they were no allowed access to restrooms and showers by lying is the reason that there are no statical measurements of sexual assaults in those facilities?

Would you like to talk about the North Carolina law now?
Image

User avatar
MotherJonses

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 73

Cannonpointer » 27 May 2016 10:40 pm » wrote: Oddly, I'm still waiting. :)
I have been very busy. Work has been a huge time suck. Some major changes at my site.

This is quite the onion of a topic, or mabye a web - other things move when you pull on a strand

I have done some of the research. I don't have the links in front of me now.

A summary of what I have so far:
- greenhouse gases trap certain wavelegths of solar radation within the atmosphere
- carbon we are releasing is a different isotope than that which is naturally released so we know we are emitting it.
- that causes warming - which causes more grenhouse gases (methane in the permafrost)
- methane is a far worse greenhouse gas than carbon
- our levels now are high,earlier than they should be at this point in the glacial cycle
- the fuel we burn dates from the actual highest ever period of carbon in the atmosphere (it is everything the carbon was trapped in - plants and plankton)
- we may not be burning more fossil fuels than in the past (early industrial revolution) but our global deforestation levels are higher (and even if we are actually fixing that it will take time before the saplings are as effective as the old growth forest) Those new forests also will not have the biodiversity of the old ones and we are losing out on potential medicinal plants.
- this warming will eventually lead to cooling as the ice melts and the cold fresh water shifts the jet stream
- even if the carbon doesn't warm the earth as claimed - it will create carbonic acid in the ocean (which we already overfish and use as a trash dump)


The "warmers" as you call them do have some problems though:
climate models suck, especially when the data does not fit earlier events
The idea of "if it bleeds it leads" has everyone gloom and doom, this means everyting is blown way out of proportion.
The profit motive is **** up science on both sides.
There is a decidedly unscientific attitude that the science is settled - science is never settled.

The questions of environemental policy, energy policy and resource use are not simpy about climate change. Beyond the squabble about consensus and emails there is this to consider:

We will run out of oil - the very fact we are using the tar sands speaks to the depletion of easy reserves.
We will run out of coal - we have a countdown on the decades now.
We will run out of natural gas - we waste it when we frack.

Our monoculture farming needs petroleum, our energy production is mostly dependant on fossil fuels. Without some adaptation and change will will see food shortages. Modern medicine (especially diagnostic tools needs the lights to be on)

A locally centered food supply, and alternative power supplies couldn't possibly hurt us. They could only benefit us - escpecially if is it US companies and not the Chinese who are devolping and producing it. Recycling couldn't possibly hurt us.

Our dependency forces us into bed with nations like Saudi Arabia and bleeds billions of our dollars into wars to secure resources we could be moving past. All the drama that is playing out in the middle east and surorunding Russia is based on the fossil fuel economy - this has the potential to lead to WWIII.


And finally - many of the oligarchs who are pushing the climate panic make their money from fossil fuels, if we innovate, renovate and take away their source of income and power - what else can be had? Cleaner air, cleaner water, healhier food, no defit spending on our military......

I am not chicken little about this - some of these reserves will last hundreds of years. But do we want to be ahead of the game or scrambling to make a deadline?
Image

User avatar
MotherJonses

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 73

Racetex (RSIG) » 21 May 2016 7:31 pm » wrote: I try as much as I can to keep that garbage away from her. What gives you the right to push a boy with a **** on her? I do not want her to see it until I feel as her father she is pld enough to understand. It that so wrong?
Ladies rooms have stalls - she wouldn't see the **** unless she is peeking.
Image

User avatar
MotherJonses

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 73

Cannonpointer » 21 May 2016 5:31 am » wrote:A sexual predator who is allowed unfettered access to cruise for victims can strike when he feels the moment is right.

Covering the mouth of a nine year old girl while anally raping her can take only seconds.

If that predator's presence were not permitted by people who are freaked out about the insufficiency of mere signs to deter violence against women (yet inexplicably insist on removing such signs), his ability to cruise with impunity would not make his little hobby so easy to engage in.

I can't think how I might convince you that increasing the access of predators to their prey is good for the predators and bad for the prey. I suppose if you watch some issue of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, it might help - or maybe take a class in logic. Other than that, I'm at a loss.
If that is the case, why focus on Transgendered? Why not pass laws that would make it a crime for convicted sex offenders to use public restrooms? Or does my son not deserve the protections you would offer my daughters?
Are you okay with the assaults real transgender women will suffer in men's rooms in the name of a law that is supposed to stop people intent on breaking other laws?
Image

User avatar
MotherJonses

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 73

Sgt Bilko » 24 Feb 2016 3:59 pm » wrote: Point 2 is incorrect!!! Look at the CO2 and temperature in this graph.

Image

In addition to this the temperature over the last 10,000 years shows signifintly higher temperatures 4 times previously including the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval times. We have just come out of the little ice age and AGW yells disaster!!!

In addition all bad prophecies of the AGW have failed. In fact the glaciers have been melting the last 10,000 years since coming out of the last ice age!!!

For these reasons given by scientific research I state AGW is what comes from the North end of a South bound bull!!!
You do not understand the amount of moving parts in climate do you? CO2 is not the only factor. Like I said, volcanos and other particulates can counter the warming from CO2.
Image

User avatar
MotherJonses

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 73

Cannonpointer » 23 Feb 2016 11:24 pm » wrote: I have one more question of you, and that is this:

While you are tossing more studies onto the scale in support of your thesis, you have failed to respond (or I have failed to see and register your response) to our debunking of the cook study.

Do you think it is a fair - or even honest - debate technique to simply IGNORE broadsides against your position, and neither defend NOR abandon the damaged cook study? Do you suppose that such action on your part gives us confidence that if we do the heavy lifting of disproving the evidence which you now bring to us, you will be any more forthright about THAT than you've been about cook et al?

Is this to be a debate, or a loud talking, ear plugging contest?
Honestly I have started and deleted several responses to your posts on this issue.
I am frustrated to see the amount of emotional, partisan rhetoric. The constant fall back to Ad Hominem, the strawmen and the way you have played fast and loose with the actual facts because you don't like the other people who are debating this.

You called 1130 ppm 200,000 ppm and then excused your blatant overstatement because Techno is an *******.

You keep trying to force positions on me that are not mine. I have never cheer-leaded the 97% consensus of scientists on this site. That has always been Reasonable and Techo. When I did look into it I found and quoted the actual conclusion to the Cooke et. al. study that said that 97% of the papers that mentioned ACC claimed a link to human action. That paper never claimed that all scientists thought anything. Their own words are that the papers selected contained the statements. Are the authors for that paper to be held accountable for the lies others have told about their work? This is not including the numerous other studies that have been done and the many other nations who claim a consensus.

The whole consensus issue is a strawman to the main issue of climate change and it's causes anyway.
To claim that a single survey out of many has been debunked because people other than the authors have lied about the results does not prove that the oceans are not warming. In fact it does not address any of the actual science involved. There was no consensus on germ theory or plate tectonics either.

You want to talk about the science.
You posted a paper from a peer reviewed journal that stated two things -
1) The CO2 ppm in the Mesozoic are (60 million years ago) was 1130 ppm
2) The rise and fall of CO2 in the atmosphere is linked to the global temperature

Despite having enough faith in the authors to use it to prove one point you reject the second because it does not fit the conclusion that you have already come to. That is not science and there is no debate if you are looking to cherry pick only the information that confirms your bias.

In your response to my correction of the 200,000 ppm number you stated that the number was actually the lowest it has ever been. Which was again incorrect. We are at twice what the CO2 ppm generally is during ice ages. You were again speaking to your bias without looking at the science. Did you even know where the levels were?

To say it doesn't support my position is not refuting evidence. Your paper stated that climate and atmospheric CO2 are linked. You did nothing to dispute that. You just repeated that there is no science to support the position that there is warming and that it humans have a hand in causing it. The first step in proving humans could cause it is to state that CO2 and temperature are linked. Your paper and the paper it linked to stated that - so respond to it.

It doesn't help your argument to fall back over and over again to an ad hominem attack on Al Gore. He is not a scientist, he is a politician and a propagandist who removed all the qualifiers of the work of actual scientists and sold doom and gloom to sell DVDs.

I see you are trying to take the high road in discussing this with me, but your responses to others are in the same threads and I can see the Rove level attacks on peripheral figures that is pretending to be an attack on science. The way you are being told something does not make it false.

I will not defend Gore.
I will not defend hyperbolic lies that twist the actual papers in question; but I will go back to those papers and restate what they actually say and evaluate based on that.
I will not attack authors or their findings when the lies are being told by politicians and "journalists"
I will not defend climate models when there are too many moving parts to be able to make reliable predictions. A cold la nina or a volcano can too easily throw off the model.

My actual position is this:
the Cooke study should have been meaningless - they were just looking at abstracts and there is a bias in publishing - those for any idea will write more than those against it. It has gained so much ground because of those who have lied, saying it was about scientist and not papers -- and all those that used it as a straw man pretending that defeating it is actually defeating climate change.
That the earth has been warming and that the causes for that are both human and natural.
- they can measure the specific types of radiation that each element reflects and it is carbon that is keeping the heat in.
- there are different isotopes of carbon and there is a measurable difference between those that are a result of human activity and those that are not.
- They can tell that we are releasing amounts far higher than would be in the atmosphere already
- events like volcanoes and others that create reflective particles have blunted some of the warming.

You keep repeating that you cannot prove a negative - but that is meaningless in this debate.
If the position of fraud is accurate - then you can prove that there is no change in temps. (ocean or surface) or that carbon is not or could not keep in heat, that there is no way to tell which carbon is which. Those positions have been taken - refute the science.

Image
Image

User avatar
MotherJonses

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 73

Cedarswamp » 08 Mar 2015 3:14 pm » wrote: For you education the NASA claim uses 2 student papers and an opinion piece as it source for the 97% claim. :huh:
So that is what you are going with - 2 Student papers and an opinion piece?

from Wiki:

Oreskes, 2004

A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science
Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[
9]
The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
STATS, 2007

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; 41% say they thought the effects of global warming would be near catastrophic over the next 50-100 years; 44% say said effects would be moderately dangerous; 13% saw relatively little danger; 56% say global climate change is a mature science; 39% say it is an emerging science. [
10]
[
11]

Bray and von Storch, 2008

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Germany, conducted an online survey in August 2008, of 2,059 climate scientists from 34 different countries, the third survey on this topic by these authors.[
12]
A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 375 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18%. The climate change consensus results were published by Bray,[
13]
and another paper has also been published based on the survey.[
14]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.[
12]

In the section on climate change impacts, questions 20 and 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20, "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" Answers: 67.1% very much convinced (7), 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21, "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" Answers: 34.6% very much convinced (7), 48.9% being convinced to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not convinced at all (1).[
12]

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009

This paper is an abridged version of the Zimmerman 2008 MS thesis; the full methods are in the MS thesis.[
15]
A web-based poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the Earth and Environmental Sciences department, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. The survey was designed to take less than two minutes to complete. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures had generally risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. 76 out of the 79 respondents who "listed climate science as their area of expertise, and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change", thought that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Of those 79 scientists, 75 out of the 77 answered that human activity was a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures, a sample size which would result in a margin of error of 11 percentage points. The remaining two were not asked, because in question one they responded that temperatures had remained relatively constant. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent respectively thinking that human activity was a significant contributing factor. In summary, Doran and Zimmerman wrote:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[
16

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010


Anderegg et al., in a 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers, based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about anthropogenic climate change. The number of climate-relevant publications authored or coauthored by each researcher was used to define their 'expertise', and the number of citations for each of the researcher's four highest-cited papers was used to define their 'prominence'. Removing researchers who had authored less than 20 climate publications reduced the database to 908 researchers but did not materially alter the results. The authors of the paper say that their database of researchers "is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community," but say that since they drew the researchers from the most high-profile reports and public statements, it is likely that it represents the "strongest and most credentialed" researchers both 'convinced by the evidence' (CE) and 'unconvinced by the evidence' (UE) on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.[
17]
[
18]

Anderegg et al. drew the following two conclusions: The methodology of the Anderegg et al. study was challenged in PNAS by Lawrence Bodenstein for "treat[ing] publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise". He would expect the much larger side of the climate change controversy to excel in certain publication metrics as they "continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation".[
19]
Anderegg et al. replied that Bodenstein "raises many speculative points without offering data" and that his comment "misunderstands our study's framing and stands in direct contrast to two prominent conclusions in the paper.[
20]

Another criticism of the Anderegg et al. study was that dividing the researchers into just two groups, "unconvinced" and "convinced," doesn't capture the nuances of scientific views. This "reinforces the pathological politicization of climate science," Roger Pielke Jr. wrote. Co-author Prall said that "It would be helpful to have lukewarm [as] a third category," but added that the paper provides a measure of the scientific prominence of researchers who identify with certain views.[
18]
Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011

In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University
analyzed the results of a survey of 998 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists, and 489 returned completed questionnaires. Of those who replied, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed, and 12% didn't know.[
21]
[
22]

When asked "What do you think is the % probability of human-induced global warming raising global average temperatures by two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years?’’: 19% of respondents answered less than 50% probability, 56% said over 50%, and 26% didn't know.[
22]

When asked what they regard as "the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years," on a scale of 1 to 10, from Trivial to Catastrophic: 13% of respondents replied 1 to 3 (trivial/mild), 44% replied 4 to 7 (moderate), 41% replied 8 to 10 (severe/catastrophic), and 2% didn't know.[
22]

Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012

Lefsrud and Meyer surveyed members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), a professional association for the petroleum industry in Alberta. The aims of the study included examining the respondents' "legitimation of themselves as experts on 'the truth', and their attitudes towards regulatory measures."[
23]
Writing later, the authors added, "we surveyed engineers and geologists because their professions dominate the oil industry and their views on climate change influence the positions taken by governments, think tanks and environmental groups."[
24]

The authors found that 99.4% agreed that the global climate is changing but that "the debate of the causes of climate change is particularly virulent among them." Analyzing their responses, the authors labelled 36% of respondents 'comply with Kyoto', as "they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause."[
23]
'Regulation activists' (10%) "diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life." Skeptical of anthropogenic warming (sum 51%) they labelled 'nature is overwhelming' (24%), 'economic responsibility' (10%), and 'fatalists' (17%). Respondents giving these responses disagreed in various ways with mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, expressing views such as that climate change is 'natural', that its causes are unknown, that it is harmless, or that regulation such as that represented by Kyoto Protocol is in itself harmful.[
23]

They found that respondents that support regulation (46%) ('comply with Kyoto' and 'regulation activists') were "significantly more likely to be lower in the organizational hierarchy, younger, female, and working in government", while those that oppose regulation ('nature is overwhelming' and 'economic responsibility') were "significantly more likely to be more senior in their organizations, male, older, geoscientists, and work in the oil and gas industry".[
23]
Discussing the study in 2013, the authors ask if such political divisions distract decision-makers from confronting the risk that climate change presents to businesses and the economy.[
24]

John Cook et al., 2013

Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.[
25]

In their discussion of the results in 2007, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation,[
26]
adding that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved on to other topics."[
25]

In Science & Education in August 2013 David Legates and three coauthors reviewed the corpus used by Cook et al. In their assessment, "inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1% consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3% endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."
However, as the paper took issue in the definition of consensus, the definition of consensus was split into several levels: In the end, of all the abstracts that took a position on the subject, 22.97% and 72.50% were found to take an explicit but unquantified endorsement position or an implicit endorsement position, respectively. The 0.3% figure represents abstracts taking a position of "Actually endorsing the standard definition" of all the abstracts (1.02% of all position-taking abstracts), where the "standard definition" was juxtaposed with an "unquantified definition" drawn from the 2013 Cook et al. paper as follows:
The unquantified definition: "The consensus position that humans are causing global warming"The standard definition: As stated in their introduction, that "human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)"
Criticism was also made to the "arbitrary" exclusion of non-position-taking abstracts as well as other issues of definitions. [
27]

Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Mörner, who question the consensus, were cited in a Wall Street Journal article by Joseph Bast and [url=javascript:void(0)]Roy Spencer[/url] disputing the 97% figure, as climate scientists who assert that Cook misrepresented their work.[
28]

Climate economist Richard Tol has also been a persistent critic of the Cook et al. paper, arguing that the authors "used an unrepresentative sample, left out much useful data, used biased observers who disagreed with the authors of the papers they were classifying nearly two-thirds of the time, and collected and analysed the data in such a way as to allow the authors to adjust their preliminary conclusions as they went along".[
29]
Cook et al. replied to Tol's criticisms, pointing out that "the 97% consensus has passed peer-review, while Tol's criticisms have not". [
30]

A new paper[
31]
by Rasmus E. Benestad, Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, and John Cook examined the quality of the 3% of peer-reviewed papers discovered by this work to reject the consensus view. They discovered that "replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases".
Powell, 2013

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium,
analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[
32]
This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[
33]


So which are the two student papers and which the opinion piece? Looks like a lot of surveys of scientists and surveys of papers to me. Cooks is not the best - but he was not alone writing it.

I will also ask you the same question that I asked Cannon - does a consensus or a lack of consensus change the science? There were times when the majority of scientist did not believe in things we now take as gospel: plate techtonics, the Earth revolving around the Sun, that viruses and bacteria cause disease etc.
Image

User avatar
MotherJonses

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 73

roadkill » 21 Feb 2016 9:07 am » wrote:It would seem very logical that, Al Gore being one of the high profile leaders of the AGW movement, would visit the MSM on a regular basis to support his claims.

When was the last time anyone saw Al Gore in the MSM concerning this topic?

It's pretty easy to determine that if Al Gore was holding the Ace he would be all over the MSM...but he is not!

Do you mean ... A politician lied?
Forgive me if I save the teeth gnashing, hair ringing and hair pulling for something that is not an everyday occurrence.
Image

User avatar
MotherJonses

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 73

Sgt Bilko » 21 Feb 2016 11:39 am » wrote:It amazes me that the AGW idea is a religion to those arguing for it. They keep spouting the same disproven ideas endlessly. They are the real science deniers. Any weather condition is proof to them that AGW is fact. They want to believe man is the culprit no matter the evidence against it and the fraud to support it. In Biblical Israel a prophet whose prophecies failed to happen were killed. Today the absolute failure of the AGW prophesies are ignored by the faithful. They keep sounding the gloom and doom while their main prophet AL Gore laughs all the way to the bank with his carbon credit fraud.

Please produce the "evidence" against humans causing climate change.

Or shut the **** up with this "religion" nonsense.
Image

User avatar
MotherJonses

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 73

Cannonpointer » 20 Feb 2016 1:34 am » wrote: A more succinct statement of what you just posted:

"We don't know ****. We have a HYPOTHOSIS. A good amount of the existing scholarship disagrees with this hypothosis. But we're willing to hint at, without outright taking, an alarmist position."

I ax for proof and you bring me beer, not distilled spirits.

No one knows the deal with the die off. Velakovsky's Worlds In Collision Link theorizes that as recently as 3500-4500 years ago, ANOTHER die off was caused by a near collision with a comet. Velikovsky's thesis is that the fallout from that comet's tail, along with the earth flipping on its axis, caused the die off. It is undisputed that the poles have flipped on numerous occasions, and it would take a leap of faith to doubt that something that massive would cause extinctions.

What all scientists, historians, archaeologists and dog sled operators agree to is this: Wooly Mammoths half again the size of modern elephants have been found so quickly and deeply frozen as to leave their flesh still edible, notwithstanding they died ungutted and their bowels, like yours, work by reverse osmosis.

What that means is they got kinda cold kinda quick - we're talking WAY below zero, in an INSTANT. Big stuff happens, and we forget who we are and where we came from and cannot find any link to our own **** past - much less palm read the mother planet.

I have nothing but respect for science - I would love to impart that respect to others, including yourself. "I love you" are - contrary to romantics - NOT the three most powerful words. The three most powerful words are "I don't know," because they open the world to the speaker. Those words are our flashlight, and until we utter them, we shine our light on nothing.

Global warming is a political movement, not a scientific theory. If it is a scientific theory, tell me the names of some scientists who openly propound it - and share their work - inluding some videos of them explaining this urgent news to humankind. If it's so existentially important that we need cheating clerks and circus barkers playing sleazy games to save the planet, WHERE THE **** ARE THE SCIENTISTS?

Every peer reviewed research paper has an abstract. Show me an abstract written by a physicist or a meteorologist or a climate scientist - not a podiatrist or a dental hygeinist - which states that the earth is warming, CO2 is a primary cause in that warming, and humankind are a primary - or even significant - driver of that.

Where's the beef?
The paper that you provided to show the CO2 levels in the mesozoic era states twice that CO2 is a causal factor in warming, it warms when it goes up and cools when it goes down. Look at the segments that I bolded in my last reply. The author of the above paper is a professor of Natural Sciences. The paper that you quoted was linked at the bottom of the paper you provided to prove CO2 levels; and from the same journal.

Neither paper states that humans are causing it. I will work on that.
Image

User avatar
MotherJonses

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 73

Cannonpointer » 08 Mar 2015 3:05 am » wrote:We are told another 20 PPM of c02 and we're venus. We are told that the atmosphere has more c02 now than ever in earth's history, - indeed, that is what the hockey stick graph (the gorebalists' "smoking gun," until they were no longer able to suppress the science) was predicated on: That c02 is OFF THE CHARTS! Well, hold the presses, *******. Make new charts for the numbers to not fit on, frauds. C02 measured in the THOUSANDS of ppm very recently:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n ... 07.29.html
Here are the specs on all of this:
Palaeoclimatology (Communication arising) CO 2 and the end-Triassic mass extinction
Nature Brief Communication (24 Jan 2002)
Palaeoclimatology (Communication arising): CO2 and the end-Triassic mass extinction
David Beerling

The end of the Triassic period was marked by one of the largest and most enigmatic mass-extinction events in Earth's history1 and, with few reliable marine geochemical records, terrestrial sediments offer an important means of deciphering environmental changes at this time. Tanner et al.2 describe an isotopic study of Mesozoic fossil soils which suggests that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (pCO2) across the Triassic–Jurassic boundary was relatively constant (within 250 p.p.m.v.), but this is inconsistent with high-resolution evidence from the stomatal characters of fossil leaves3. Here I show that the temporal resolution of the fossil-soil samples may have been inadequate for detecting a transient rise in pCO2. I also show that the fossil-soil data are consistent with a large increase in pCO2 across the Triassic–Jurassic boundary when variations in the stable carbon isotope (denoted as Image13C) in terrestrial plant leaves are taken into account. These factors suggest that the linkage between pCO2, global warming and the end-Triassic mass extinction remains intact.


The red bolded segments of the OP state that CO2 levels were linked to paleolithic climate change. That the CO2 levels dropped during periods of glaciation. This article - while it might disute the amounts needed for warming - clearly links CO2 to climate change. I also included the summary of an article the OP links in the Nature Journal.
Image

User avatar
MotherJonses

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 73

Cannonpointer » 19 Feb 2016 10:49 pm » wrote: So - NOT lower than the current era.

So - CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere HAVE NEVER BEEN LOWER?

Thank you.

Edit - okay, I see it: 200,000 ppm.

I was **** with a cowardly retard who deserved to be talked stupid to.
Today's number of 402 is lower than either of the numbers listed.

However - it is not the lowest, it has been lower. 20,000 and 90,000 years ago in Greenland and Anartica the CO2 averaged around 200 ppm.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pale ... 2-2008.txt

It tends to hit 180 ppm during ice ages.

Image
Image

User avatar
MotherJonses

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 73

Cannonpointer » 02 Nov 2015 9:29 pm » wrote: You ignorant ape, are you REALLY so one-dimensional and double digit that you cannot understand I am using a study whose CONCLUSIONS I don;t co-sign to present ADMISSIONS which you hacks are running from like little monkeys?

C02 USED TO MEASURE 200,000 PPM, YOU STUPID ****. Read the OP. :die:
Your OP doesn't state that.....

" Here, we present high-resolution records of Mesozoic and early Cenozoic atmospheric CO2 concentrations from a combination of carbon-isotope analyses of non-vascular plant (bryophyte) fossils and theoretical modelling6,7. These records indicate that atmospheric CO2 rose from Image420 p.p.m.v. in the Triassic period (about 200 million years ago) to a peak of Image1,130 p.p.m.v. in the Middle Cretaceous
(about 100 million years ago). "
Image

User avatar
MotherJonses

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 73

Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2016 2:49 pm » wrote: 1. Is it a legitimate purpose of science to mold public opinion at all - much less using sophomoric tallies by unqualified authors which masquerade as "peer-reviewed science?"
There will be times when action is needed and science will need to be used to effect that change. If you believed the AGW theory was completely correct wouldn't you advocate for science being used to educate the public so the correct actions could be taken? What about scientist who advocate against nuclear war - are they not using science to mold public opinion. I see little problem with it if the science is good.
Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2016 2:49 pm » wrote:2. Can you name another time in statistical analysis that the sample and the population under analysis were the same?
Don't understand the question.
Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2016 2:49 pm » wrote:3. Can you salvage cook's reputation in light of the falsely quantified paper I provided? If not, how can you defend cook?
The first line of the paper that you showed implies that humans are causing the change - as it discusses what humans can do to stop it. Are we to assume that we can stop climate change we did not start?
Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2016 2:49 pm » wrote:4. Does a "consensus" so broad that it encompasses mortal enemies as ersatz allies justify Big Climate's shills dancing about it and gushing over it on television? When John Oliver had 97 people gang up on 3, wasn't that based on pure lies? Wasn't that PROPAGANDA sponsored by Big Climate?
Didn't see the John Oliver piece in question. Our perspectives on this vary so widely that we might have a different take away. Who is Big Climate? Who controls their check book that they use to pay for propaganda? I would need that information to see who sponsors Oliver's HBO show.
Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2016 2:49 pm » wrote:5. Besides this fake and discredited consensus, do you have ANYTHING to justify Big Climate's much ado about nothing - anything other than MORE artificial sizzle, which itself merely advertizes a pathetic deficit of steak?
Does a lack of consensus make the claims false? Were the plates not moving when plate tectonics was dismissed by mainstream science? Did the earth not revolve around the sun when the church was burning and locking up the people that said it did? Just because there is no consensus or less of one than claimed is not proof the idea is wrong, there needs to be either conflicting data or proof that the data was incorrect.

Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2016 2:49 pm » wrote:If so, I challenge you to start a thread. Order your OP in chunks of proofs - 1. proof of warming 2. proof of melts 3. proof of sea level rise (snicker) 4. proof of consensus among scientists 5. proof of CO2 causality - that sort of thing, as you see fit. Prepare to see your "science" shredded - logically, calmly and succinctly before your eyes. Spend 500 rep and make it a peanut gallery thread so you can evict flamers and me-too pukes, leaving only logical arguments backed by legitimate sources standing. Please, consider yourself not just dared, but double-dog dared.

I will reimburse you for the 500 out of my bank.
I will create this thread, but it will take some time. As I found in looking in to the consensus - it is hard to find the actual data as opposed to people talking about the data. I want to make sure that this doesn't devolve into an attack on sources and style.
Image