• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

What exactly is the party line for graduate schools? Who are you quoting? Where does the quote begin because there's only a quotation mark at the end of the statement. Where does your BS end, and the person you're pretending to be begin?

You are the Shia Lebeouf of scientific plagiarism.
 
ONW said:
What exactly is the party line for graduate schools? Who are you quoting? Where does the quote begin because there's only a quotation mark at the end of the statement. Where does your BS end, and the person you're pretending to be begin?

You are the Shia Lebeouf of scientific plagiarism.
Click to expand...

The same fucking guy I have been quoting ^(Nir Shaviv) and continued quoting you dim dam dum ass college kids.
 
Astrophysicist Huz Mizai says that humans are warming the earth (note not just the atmosphere) with the CO2 emissions and that by the time people realize it there will be nothing we can do .
 
OP/ED 2/13/2013 @ 1:19PM |114,046 views
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

"It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem."

Smokin!
 
just to recap:

thousands of scientists around the world working on climate research for decades: a bunch of lying idiots

5 italians working on the shroud producing a 'possible method of pigmentation" - God
 
ImTheCaptain said:
just to recap:

thousands of scientists around the world working on climate research for decades: a bunch of lying idiots

5 italians working on the shroud producing a 'possible method of pigmentation" - God
Click to expand...

You don't understand what was said. I'd say "just give up" but it's clear that you had before you'd even started.

Not much to say when you would equate the examination of a document to the examination of the earths fucking system of weather. Sigh. Face plant.
 
Last edited:
-- This leads one to wonder when the science became “settled.” Was it seven years ago when alarmists claimed global warming would reduce the frequency and severity of Arctic cold fronts reaching the United States, or this winter when they blame an increase in such repeated Arctic cold fronts on global warming? Was it three weeks ago when Time claimed global warming is bringing an end to snowfall, or two weeks ago when every state but Florida had snow on the ground and alarmists blamed it on global warming? Was it in 2007 when alarmists claimed global warming was melting Antarctic ice sheets, or in 2013 when they said global warming is causing record Antarctic ice extent? Was it in 1998 when alarmist computer models predicted dramatic warming during the following 16 years, or today after no such warming has occurred?

I nominate Jeff Fuggin [Redacted] to head up the IPCC's next junket! ^^
 
Last edited:
I read absolutely nothing that you don't properly document and cite your source, so my dim dum ass hasn't been reading your copy and paste posts.

PS - In science, it's typically not a good idea to base your argument on one source's opinion repeatedly...it makes it appear that you're not really interesting in researching any opinions that don't agree with yours.

ETA - And before you accuse me of the same, if you fucking documented anything I would take the time to read it.
 
Last edited:
Like I give a shit. Did the Tabloid Climate Armageddonists cite the 17 year span of no temp increase?

Record-breaking cold temperatures and snowfall across much of the United States and Canada have experts warning people to be careful, saying the frigid conditions could even kill those who are not prepared or properly dressed for the conditions. In some areas, factoring in wind chills, it could feel as cold as 70 degrees Fahrenheit below zero. At the earth’s poles, the situation is even more serious, with the highest amount of sea-ice cover since records began almost four decades ago. As their controversial theories melt down on the world stage, however, global-warming alarmists are not giving up yet.


Many climate experts around the world say the ongoing freeze is just the start of a new period of global cooling sparked largely by decreasing solar activity. More than a few scientists are even warning that the planet is headed for another “Little Ice Age,” with potentially devastating consequences for humanity. Even the discredited climate-alarmism apparatus at the United Nations has quietly lowered its wild temperature predictions. Political analysts, meanwhile, are now forecasting the imminent demise of what critics refer to as the “cult” of global-warming hysteria.

For government-backed global-warming alarmists, however, the record cold is, somehow, just more evidence of alleged “man-made global warming,” requiring, of course, carbon taxes and a planetary climate regime. Despite regularly seizing on every bit of bad weather as more evidence for their anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming theories, other alarmists are warning that the record-breaking cold should be ignored because it is weather, not climate. In desperation, a few alarmists have even hyped some warm weather in Australia to claim that their theories should still be taken seriously.
 
some scientist should look into just how the universe is able to maintain stability in the face of lectro's thought process on this thread and the shroud thread AT THE SAME TIME

crossing streams, and the like
 
Hey face plant, found a couple of heroes for you and double ought:


“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.“
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
- Al Gore,
Climate Change activist
 
Well, they probably wouldn't have to be as calculated on how to reach the public with the facts about climate change if they didn't face a bunch of idiot, undereducated, Internet truthers like you, Lectro.

HUGE CONSPIRACY
 
yeah, communication of scientific principles is a heavily discussed field. Here's the full quote, from 1989:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989. For the original, together with Schneider's commentary on its misrepresentation, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996.[9]).

in fact, here's his whole OP/ED on the subject. It's on Page 5 of the PDF.

His point is that for scientists, communicating incredibly complex issues (both scientifically complex and complex for stakeholders) is difficult and requires a level of simplification that maintains the integrity of the issue. Scientists are trained to constantly doubt themselves and one another and any presentation of anything is usually littered with caveats b/c the penalty for overreaching and being wrong is often severely damaging, career wise. Also, most scientists are terrible at communicating outside the scientific community. The problem is, the simplification and admitted limitations of research is often dumbed down even further or sliced and diced by people like YOU to fit a narrative.
 
I'm so hoping this isn't behind the paywall --

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304026804579411021545493020?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mg=reno64-wsj

Money shot --

But engineering and venture capital (Mr. Steyer's job until he retired a year ago) are hard work and require personal resilience, while the pleasure of climate warriorhood is sitting at your little blog and picturing yourself a moral hero whose opponents deserve to be silenced if not exterminated. In our time, climate activism has devolved into self-medication for the moderately mentally ill (and who's to say this is not a useful service). Anyone genuinely concerned about the climate future might do better to get an engineering or finance degree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top