Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

    Originally posted by Cleisthenes View Post
    Stratospheric water vapor is important enough to offset most of the warming from CO2 but not all of it. That doesn't negate the fact that most of the feedback from CO2 warming comes from the troposphere, not the stratosphere. Your attempts to create contradictions where none exist only illustrate your lack of understand on the subject. And you still haven't answered my question of what you think happens when ENSO reverses and stratospheric water vapor increases again?
    They are not sure if stratospheric water vapor increased between 1980 and 2000, so no-one can say with any certainty what will happen if it increases in the future.

    ?


    • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

      Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
      The 97% has already been repeatedly refuted by others and I will not dignify it as though credible. And no, you absolutely did not answer my question of where the 10M came from. The presented evidence remains unchallenged; more actual scientists are on record refuting AGW, such as the Oregon Petition, by a very large margin.
      When you don't even understand what constitutes "most", how can we expect you to understand simple statistics? But I guess if you were open to reason, you wouldn't have me on ignore.

      And so we do another lap on the greatest hoax in the history of the world. Science does not work by consensus but evidence. Alarmist predictions keep proving wrong. While alarmists said over and over again the 1990's was the hottest decade on record - due to manipulation of data - and that is the most compelling evidence to date, when cooling is seen not in 10 years but 15 years, their standards of significance prove to be double standards. Those with the most to gain from AGW repeatedly are found manipulating data. A reasonable question is IF the data actually supported AGW, why would they resort to altering the data?
      When the 1990's was the hottest decade on record before the 2000's, I don't see how these predictions are being proven wrong. But then again, why should I expect you to believe science.

      The answer is obvious. There is no global warming so there can be no man-made global warming. AGW is the greatest hoax in the history of the world, used by Leftists in an attempt to achieve world wide socialist utopia starting with global control of energy by force. This explains why the subject is hotly discussed on political forums.
      What explains this is that one side of the political spectrum is much more likely to dismiss the scientific consensus.

      A Deeper Partisan Divide Over Global Warming | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

      ?


      • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

        Originally posted by Brexx View Post
        They are not sure if stratospheric water vapor increased between 1980 and 2000, so no-one can say with any certainty what will happen if it increases in the future.
        So all of the measurements NOAA has taken every two weeks since 1980 over Boulder, Colorado, don't mean anything?

        ?


        • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

          Originally posted by Cleisthenes View Post
          So all of the measurements NOAA has taken every two weeks since 1980 over Boulder, Colorado, don't mean anything?
          Again from the study you linked:

          More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000,

          Words like "suggest" and "probably" indicate uncertainty.

          ?


          • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

            Another area of uncertainty is how come the vapor levels decreased until 1980?

            ?


            • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

              Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
              The 97% has already been repeatedly refuted by others and I will not dignify it as though credible. And no, you absolutely did not answer my question of where the 10M came from. The presented evidence remains unchallenged; more actual scientists are on record refuting AGW, such as the Oregon Petition, by a very large margin.
              In early 2008, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) published their Petition Project, a list of names from people who all claimed to be scientists and who rejected the science behind the theory of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW). This was an attempt to by the OISM to claim that there were far more scientists opposing AGW theory than there are supporting it. This so-called petition took on special importance coming after the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes Fourth Assessment Report, and specifically the Working Group 1 (WG1) report on the science and attribution of climate change to human civilization.

              The WG1 report was authored and reviewed by approximately 2000 scientists with varying expertise in climate and related fields, and so having a list of over 30,000 scientists that rejected the WG1s conclusions was a powerful meme that AGW skeptics and deniers could use to cast doubt on the IPCCs conclusions and, indirectly, on the entire theory of climate disruption. And in fact, this meme has become widespread in both legacy and new media today.

              It is also false.

              According to the Petition Project qualifications page, Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The fields that are considered appropriate by the OISM are as follows:

              Atmosphere, Earth, and Environment fields: atmospheric science, climatology, meteorology, astronomy, astrophysics, earth science, geochemistry, geology, geophysics, geoscience, hydrology, environmental engineering, environmental science, forestry, oceanography
              Computers and Math: computer science, mathematics, statistics
              Physics and Aerospace: physics, nuclear engineering, mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering
              Chemistry: chemistry, chemical engineering
              Biochemistry, Biology, and Agriculture: biochemistry, biophysics, biology, ecology, entomology, zoology, animal science, agricultural science, agricultural engineering, plant science, food science
              Medicine: medical science, medicine
              General Engineering and General Science: engineering, electrical engineering, metallurgy, general science
              The OISMs qualifications for being a scientist are expansive, and as such there are a number of questions that have to be answered before we can take this list seriously. What expertise does a nuclear engineer or a medical doctor or a food scientist or mechanical engineer have that makes them qualified to have an informed opinion on the cause(s) of recent climate disruption? How many of these names are working climate scientists instead of science or math teachers or stay-at-home-moms with engineering degrees? How many of these people has actually published a peer-reviewed paper on climate? How many people took a look at the card that served as a signature (click on the image to see a larger version) and realized that they could lie about having a science degree and their deception would never be discovered?

              At this point its literally impossible to know because the names and degrees on the list cannot be verified by anyone outside the OISM. We can only take the OISMs word that theyre all real names, that all the degrees are correct, and so on. This does not stand up to the most basic tests of scientific credibility.

              Unfortunately, the OISMs list has had its credibility fabricated for it by individuals and groups as diverse as Steve Milloy of Fox News (see this link for a S&R investigation into the background and tactics of Steve Milloy), L. Brent Bozell of conservative news site Newsbusters and founder of the conservative Media Research Center, Benita M. Dodd of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, the libertarian/conservative site American Thinker (a site that has regularly failed to fact-check their AGW posts), conservative commentator Deroy Murdock (who works on Project 21 with the wife of one of Steve Milloys long-time associates), RightSideNews, Dakota Voice, Dennis T. Avery of the Hudson Institute, Lawrence Solomon of the Financial Post, Michelle Malkin, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, to name just a few of the better known. As a result, the OISMs petition has been elevated to a level of credibility that is arguably undeserved.

              While its not possible to test the validity of OISM list directly, it is possible to test the conclusions that have been drawn from the OISM list. Specifically, we can test what percentage the 30,000 scientists listed on the OISM petition represent when compared to the total number of scientists in the U.S. And we can then compare that to the percentage represented by the 2000 IPCC AR4 WG1-associated scientists as compared to the estimate number of U.S. climate-related scientists.

              According to the OISM website, anyone with a Bachelors, Masters, or Doctorate of Philosophy in a field related to physical sciences is qualified as a scientist. In addition, the OISM sent the petition cards pictured above only to individuals within the U.S. Based on this information, we can us the OISMs own guidelines to determine how many scientists there are in the U.S. and what percentage of those scientists are represented by the OISM petition.

              The U.S. Department of Education tracks the number of graduates from institutions of higher education every year, and has done so since either the 1950-51 or 1970-71 school years, depending on what specifically the Dept. of Ed. was interested in. This data was last updated in the Digest of Education Statistics: 2008. Were specifically interested in the number of degrees that have been awarded in the various scientific disciplines as defined by the OISM in the list above. This information is available in the following tables within the 2008 Digest: 296, 298, 302, 304, 310, 311, and 312. Table 1 below show how many graduates there were in the various categories defined by the Dept. of Ed. since the 1970-71 school year (click on the image for a larger version). The numbers have been corrected to account for the fact that PhDs will usually have MS degrees as well, and that both are preceded by BS degrees.
              [ATTACH=CONFIG]14501[/ATTACH]

              As you can see, Table 1 shows that there were over 10.6 million science graduates as defined by the OISM since the 1970-71 school year. This is a conservative estimate as illustrated by the 242,000 graduates in biological and biomedical sciences from 1950-51 through 1969-70 alone, never mind the 166,000 engineering graduates, and so on. Many of these individuals are still alive today and would be considered scientists according to the OISM definition thereof.

              The OISM website lists how many signatures they have for scientists in each of their categories. Given the number of graduates and the number of signatures claimed by the OISM, we can calculate the percentage of OISM-defined scientists who signed as referenced to the total. These results are shown in Table 2 below.
              [ATTACH=CONFIG]14502[/ATTACH]
              Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project

              And to see how they got 32000 signatures:
              Attached Files

              ?


              • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
                And so we do another lap on the greatest hoax in the history of the world. Science does not work by consensus but evidence. Alarmist predictions keep proving wrong. While alarmists said over and over again the 1990's was the hottest decade on record - due to manipulation of data - and that is the most compelling evidence to date, when cooling is seen not in 10 years but 15 years, their standards of significance prove to be double standards. Those with the most to gain from AGW repeatedly are found manipulating data. A reasonable question is IF the data actually supported AGW, why would they resort to altering the data?

                The answer is obvious. There is no global warming so there can be no man-made global warming. AGW is the greatest hoax in the history of the world, used by Leftists in an attempt to achieve world wide socialist utopia starting with global control of energy by force. This explains why the subject is hotly discussed on political forums.
                Where is your peer reviewed articles... We asked...

                In 2004, Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003. She surveyed the ISI Web of Science database, looking only at peer reviewed, scientific articles. The survey failed to find a single paper that rejected the consensus position that global warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).
                What does Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus show?

                Thats your problem you have no credible evidence... You say it but no links to credible peer reviewed material... We are still asking...
                The anti crowd throw up a lot of fog but no real evidence....
                But the biggest question has to be why are the guys who know most about this in as much agreement possibly on this...

                You consistently throwing out bland statements... Give a direct allegation of Manipulation of Data and then explain how that makes all the Data collected manipulated...
                Now since there is so much I expect a list of cases...

                ?


                • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                  Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
                  Where is your peer reviewed articles... We asked...

                  What does Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus show?

                  Thats your problem you have no credible evidence... You say it but no links to credible peer reviewed material... We are still asking...
                  The anti crowd throw up a lot of fog but no real evidence....
                  But the biggest question has to be why are the guys who know most about this in as much agreement possibly on this...

                  You consistently throwing out bland statements... Give a direct allegation of Manipulation of Data and then explain how that makes all the Data collected manipulated...
                  Now since there is so much I expect a list of cases...
                  The 97% claim has been proven false on this thread as well on others. Pay attention if you want to be taken seriously.

                  ?


                  • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                    Even if humans play no role in the Earth's warming, our wastefulness should still be a concern and if you're not you might want to start googling. I know it's constantly brought up how wasteful we are, especially us Americans with our big people and big cars, but even the little things have an impact that I at least find hard to believe. According to this one site powering a 100 watt lightbulb for 24 hours a day for a year burns 714 pounds of coal and produces 5 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 5.1 pounds of nitrogen oxides, 1852 pounds of carbon dioxide, and traces of other elements (including radioactive ones).

                    HowStuffWorks "How much coal is required to run a 100-watt light bulb 24 hours a day for a year?"

                    Other sites seem to support this, including this one site which compares powering a lightbulb using coal, nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar, and hydroelectric:

                    How much fuel does it take to power a lightbulb | Visual.ly

                    It turns out nuclear plants only takes .035 pounds of uranium and natural gas plants only uses 143 pounds of gas. There's obviously a place for renewable energy, but the amount of time and space to power just one lightbulb for an entire year is pretty significant for wind, solar, and hydroelectric. It seems to me nuclear is the way to go, although this is ignoring the fact it's pretty hard to compare uranium and coal. But ignoring all the problems that different kinds of power plants pose as well, 2500 pounds of shit (coal burnt plus the gasses released) for one freaking lightbulb seems like too much shit to me. I'm not exactly an environmentalist or anything, but somehow I think all this stuff we burn and release into the air is impacting the planet somehow and this will bite us in the ass eventually. So maybe it isn't a cause for panic but it definitely is a cause for concern that people should take at least a little seriously.
                    Last edited by AJG; 06-16-2013, 11:30 PM.

                    ?


                    • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                      Originally posted by Brexx View Post
                      The 97% claim has been proven false on this thread as well on others. Pay attention if you want to be taken seriously.
                      What 97% claim are you saying is false? Because I have been asking for peer reviewed article for three pages...

                      ?


                      • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                        Originally posted by Cleisthenes View Post
                        Actually, I can touch the sun. I can feel it's heat any time I stand outside on a sunny day. I can see the light that it bathes our world in. I can even measure it's intensity. When was the last time you touched a number?
                        That is not touching the sun, that is feeling the effect of what is claimed as emissions from the sun. How do you KNOW FACTUALLY that the sun is a big reactor as opposed to a huge woodpile? Other than observances from a distance that mimic a nuclear reaction output.

                        By your same logic, love does not exist, hell most feelings do not exist. As I said about someone else in another thread, I cannot see you, touch you or otherwise perceive you so how do I know you exist? Taking that a bit further have you ever touched your brain? Had surgery and had your scalp opened up and seen images of your brain? NO? Then how do we know your brain exists.

                        BTW you must be an Atheist as well. Just an observation.

                        Post 178 was a casual remark illustrating that nothing in science is ever "proven". It was your condescending dismissal in Post 181 that started the question of whether or not math is a science.
                        Your comment alluded to your not believing that math is a science. You have proven since that you do not believe it. That is your OPINION and like most liberal leaning people even when presented with supported facts you continue to stick to your insane position

                        I present a definition of science from the exact same source you get your definition of math and I'm the delusional one? Now you're really trolling.

                        I have produced dictionary definitions of math that state it is a science, I have presented support that it is a science from sites. All you do is say nuh uh like some school yard kid without a clue.

                        ?


                        • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                          Originally posted by Cleisthenes View Post
                          When you don't even understand what constitutes "most", how can we expect you to understand simple statistics? But I guess if you were open to reason, you wouldn't have me on ignore.


                          When the 1990's was the hottest decade on record before the 2000's, I don't see how these predictions are being proven wrong. But then again, why should I expect you to believe science.


                          What explains this is that one side of the political spectrum is much more likely to dismiss the scientific consensus.

                          A Deeper Partisan Divide Over Global Warming | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
                          Did you forget this one?

                          1934 is the hottest year on record

                          The 1930's were pretty hot. Ever wonder how the dustbowl happened?

                          ?


                          • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                            Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
                            In early 2008, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) published their Petition Project, a list of names from people who all claimed to be scientists and who rejected the science behind the theory of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW).
                            I see. I ask where you come up with 10 M scientists on record for supporting AGW and you reply with casting dispersions on the 10,000's of scientists who have come out against AGW.

                            Are all scientific organizations on record against AGW also not legitimate? Global Warming Skeptic Organizations | Union of Concerned Scientists

                            List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


                            Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

                            Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

                            Freeman Dyson,
                            professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [10]
                            Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[11]
                            Nils-Axel Mrner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (19992003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[12]
                            Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[13]
                            Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[14]
                            Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [15]

                            Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

                            Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[16]

                            Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

                            Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[17]
                            Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[18][19]
                            Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[20]
                            Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[21]
                            David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[22]
                            Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[23]
                            William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[24]
                            William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[25]
                            William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[26]
                            David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[27]
                            Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[28]
                            Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[29][30]
                            Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[31]
                            Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[32][33]
                            Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[34]
                            Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[35][36][37]
                            Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[38]
                            Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[39]
                            Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[40]
                            Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[41]

                            Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

                            Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

                            Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[42]
                            Claude Allgre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[43]
                            Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[44]
                            John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[45][46]
                            Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[47]
                            Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[48]
                            David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[49]
                            Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[50]

                            Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences


                            Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

                            Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [51]
                            Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[52]
                            Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[53]

                            See also
                            Portal icon Global warming portal

                            Global warming controversy
                            Global warming conspiracy theory
                            Hockey stick controversy
                            List of authors from the IPCC AR4 WGI report
                            List of climate scientists
                            Merchants of Doubt
                            Oregon petition
                            Only organizations for AGW are legitimate. Gotcha.

                            ?


                            • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                              Originally posted by AJG View Post
                              Even if humans play no role in the Earth's warming, our wastefulness should still be a concern
                              It is inspiring how Leftists can go from one topic to another in support of their nefarious world wide socialist utopia without admitting any topic claims were proven to be factually incorrect.
                              1. Remember the coming Ice Age in the 1970's?
                              2. Remember population explosion predictions of the 1970's?
                              3. Remember the hole in the ozone layer?
                              4. Remember birth defect claims from dirty water and dirty air?
                              5. Remember renaming global warming, climate change to catch both tails of change?


                              Now you post about waste, in general. Leftists are chicken little, the sky is falling and only by accepting world wide socialist utopia and do away with freedom and capitalism, the greatest inventions to meet the needs of people, do we have any hope of surviving.

                              ?


                              • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                                Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
                                I have produced dictionary definitions of math that state it is a science, I have presented support that it is a science from sites. All you do is say nuh uh like some school yard kid without a clue.
                                It is truly amazing how delusional Leftists are and how committed they are to their cause. They will never admit to ANY flaw in their thinking as the opposition to math as a science - or as AJG spins it, it is a different science than other sciences show. (Now anyone who has studied logic understands that every valid definition includes a genus and a differentia. All sciences have in common their genus and all sciences are different from one another by their differentia. The same is true of all like existents. Consider furniture. Sure a chair is different from other furniture but that difference only makes it a type of furniture not a type of non-furniture.)

                                Anyway, the motivation for these word games is deception. This thread shows just how much they are deceiving themselves, changing the criteria of acceptance with the flexibility of a gymnast. Claims against Leftist schemes are rejected on the basis they have never been proven but any scheme supporting Leftist goals merely need to be asserted. It is fun to watch their never ending appeal to logic fallacies. With respect to the hoax that is global warming, their primary logical fallacies are:
                                1. Appeal to Authority (climate scientists say ...)
                                2. Appeal to Majority (the vast majority of scientists say ...)
                                3. Appeal to Ignorance (even if it is untrue it is better to be safe than sorry; nothing to lose if we are wrong and extinction if the other side is wrong; blatantly ignoring evidence presented undermining their agenda.)

                                I am impressed with how devoted Leftists are to the hoax of global warming. They do not give it up. Many have either come out and claimed, or at least have not denied the claim, that ALL evidence supports global warming or its variant based on the above fallacies, we are just too stupid to understand how it supports global warming. See The Day After Tomorrow, where an ice age is brought on by global warming. And so the dance continues ...

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X