What Kind of Organization Questions Global Warming?

Just saw this news article:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...ence-a-critic/

This sort of thing should inspire those who have come to doubt the scientific
consensus on climate change whether they have been influenced by people whose
motives are obvious.

John Savard

On 4/16/2015 1:36 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
Just saw this news article:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...ence-a-critic/

This sort of thing should inspire those who have come to doubt the scientific
consensus on climate change whether they have been influenced by people whose
motives are obvious.

John Savard

chuckle

as trolls go you're jv

On 4/16/2015 1:36 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
Just saw this news article:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...ence-a-critic/

This sort of thing should inspire those who have come to doubt the scientific
consensus on climate change whether they have been influenced by people whose
motives are obvious.

John Savard

In answer to you're question:

Those that observe and question.

chuckle

On Thursday, 16 April 2015 14:36:31 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
Just saw this news article:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...ence-a-critic/

This sort of thing should inspire those who have come to doubt the scientific
consensus on climate change whether they have been influenced by people whose
motives are obvious.

John Savard

Making careers on the backs of the public (who pay for it all) by believing in global warming? Because there are THOUSANDS of people who have.

On 4/20/15 6:00 PM, David Staup wrote:
hose that observe and question.

Speaking of observing:

NOAA | Global Climate Change Indicators
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

NASA | Global Climate Change Evidence
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Two Scientific Blogs of Exceptional Quality
http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
http://www.skepticalscience.com

On 4/20/15 6:55 PM, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 16 April 2015 14:36:31 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
Just saw this news article:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...ence-a-critic/

This sort of thing should inspire those who have come to doubt the scientific
consensus on climate change whether they have been influenced by people whose
motives are obvious.

John Savard

Making careers on the backs of the public (who pay for it all) by believing in global warming? Because there are THOUSANDS of people who have.




NOAA | Global Climate Change Indicators
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

NASA | Global Climate Change Evidence
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Two Scientific Blogs of Exceptional Quality
http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
http://www.skepticalscience.com

On 4/20/2015 7:26 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/20/15 6:00 PM, David Staup wrote:
hose that observe and question.

Speaking of observing:

NOAA | Global Climate Change Indicators
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

NASA | Global Climate Change Evidence
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Two Scientific Blogs of Exceptional Quality
http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
http://www.skepticalscience.com


chuckle,

when I speak of observing I mean direct observation and question...not
create and observe false data to "find" the answer I was looking for.


when did (supposed) man made global warming begin?

answer: not long after the "little ice age" ended

when did the little ice age begin?

answer: at the end of the med-evil warming period

if you want I can take this back further... like to the end of the last
ice age and beyond....you idiot

one last question: when did the global rise in temps, that began this
global warming idiocy, end?

answer: 17 fricken years ago....you idiot


One statement here on CO2....life in general has done much better at
higher CO2 levels than today and THAT is the only measure that counts.

never heard of the carbon cycle....you idiot

On 21/04/2015 17:25, David Staup wrote:
On 4/20/2015 7:26 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/20/15 6:00 PM, David Staup wrote:
hose that observe and question.

Speaking of observing:

NOAA | Global Climate Change Indicators
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

NASA | Global Climate Change Evidence
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Two Scientific Blogs of Exceptional Quality
http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
http://www.skepticalscience.com


chuckle,

when I speak of observing I mean direct observation and question...not
create and observe false data to "find" the answer I was looking for.


when did (supposed) man made global warming begin?

answer: not long after the "little ice age" ended

when did the little ice age begin?

answer: at the end of the med-evil warming period

if you want I can take this back further... like to the end of the last
ice age and beyond....you idiot

one last question: when did the global rise in temps, that began this
global warming idiocy, end?

answer: 17 fricken years ago....you idiot


One statement here on CO2....life in general has done much better at
higher CO2 levels than today and THAT is the only measure that counts.

never heard of the carbon cycle....you idiot


Your last point is fair enough, but remember that higher CO2 levels will
result in further warming and polar ice melt leading to sea level rises;
you seem to be comfortable with the loss of much of the coastal cities
of the world, I'm not sure it's what most people want - 'life in
general' may have done OK, but 'people' will be seriously inconvenienced
if we return to the ultra high CO2 levels we may have experienced in the
past.

Oh, and you might find it interesting to look at what happened at the
end of the Permian era, another time when CO2 levels increased
dramatically.

David Staup wrote:
On 4/20/2015 7:26 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/20/15 6:00 PM, David Staup wrote:
hose that observe and question.

Speaking of observing:

NOAA | Global Climate Change Indicators
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

NASA | Global Climate Change Evidence
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Two Scientific Blogs of Exceptional Quality
http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
http://www.skepticalscience.com


chuckle,

when I speak of observing I mean direct observation and question...not
create and observe false data to "find" the answer I was looking for.


when did (supposed) man made global warming begin?

answer: not long after the "little ice age" ended

when did the little ice age begin?

answer: at the end of the med-evil warming period

Spanish and Portuguese conquests in South America and the accompanying
epidemics killed 70 to 95% of the indigenous population. They had a very
high civilisation with cities in what is now rain forest with intensive
agriculture. These cities are only now being rediscovered by aerial
surveys. A lot of what is now rainforest is regrowth of the agricultural
areas after the civilisations collapsed due mainly to smallpox. This caused
a rapid fall in CO2 which led to the little ice age.
Increasing use of coal and further deforestation in Europe then restarted
the global warming. You cold make a case for the medieval warm period being
partly cause by deforestation, particularly in Europe.



if you want I can take this back further... like to the end of the last
ice age and beyond....you idiot

No you can't!

one last question: when did the global rise in temps, that began this
global warming idiocy, end?

answer: 17 fricken years ago....you idiot

Up till that statement I can accept genuine scientific scepticism. But you
know that global warming is still happening and still you quote propaganda
instead of facts.


One statement here on CO2....life in general has done much better at
higher CO2 levels than today and THAT is the only measure that counts.

never heard of the carbon cycle....you idiot

You obviously don't think much about the carbon cycle. You probably just
sit around chuckling inanely.

On 4/21/15 11:25 AM, David Staup wrote:
chuckle,

when I speak of observing I mean direct observation and question...not
create and observe false data to "find" the answer I was looking for.


Study suggests science news affects opinions despite culture war
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/...-a-difference/

The relationships with attention to science news were more
interesting. Regardless of how liberal or conservative people
identified as, if they paid more attention to this class of news,
they tended to have slightly higher knowledge scores and perceive
that climate change had the potential to cause greater degrees of
harm. The increase in perceived harm with greater attention to
science and environmental news was mainly due to
conservatives--liberals might already be "maxed out".

While tracking science news was not directly associated with more
support for climate policies, the researchers noted a strong
connection between perceived harm and policy support (which makes
sense). So in their analysis, there was an important indirect effect
where conservatives who took in more science and environmental news
perceived climate change to be more harmful, and therefore were more
supportive of climate policies.

That sounds more like normal information processing than motivated
reasoning, and implies that news about science and environmental
issues isn't completely incapable of ameliorating the public
controversy over climate change.


Many sci.astro.amateur posters (possibly in climate change denial
in the past) are starting to acknowledge that global warming is
happening and can see evidence of the same.