RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course | The Upshot Yahoo! News

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course | The Upshot Yahoo! News

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course | The Upshot Yahoo! News

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course... - 9/3/2010 7:58:24 AM

CreativeDominant

Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

So he was believable when he was a critic, but now hes changed his mind, hes a moron.
gottit
bloody eyes hurt from rolling in my head today

Actually, he wasn't believable when he was a critic either....

For all of those coming down on conservatives, please show me an instance of a prominent, credible conservative backing this guy up when he was a critic.

Actually his lies have propped up quite frequently here and eslewhere.

For instance in his second book on AGW he makes the claim that polar bears aren't in decline. This lie has been repeated many many times.

Actually, his "lies" are not just his "lies"...they are the beliefs of many people, including people who ARE qualified scientists in the field of climate change. As for your belief that the statement that polar bears aren't in decline is a lie is just that...YOUR belief. It all depends on which side of the debate you come down on.

As for your direction to Big Daddy's thread, the source he cites does not mention Lumborg at all.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 41

RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course... - 9/3/2010 8:09:43 AM

DomYngBlk

Posts: 3316
Joined: 3/27/2006
Status: offline

Educate yourself fool http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/finder/polarbear/polarbear.html

(in reply to CreativeDominant)

Post #: 42

RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course... - 9/3/2010 8:19:08 AM

DCWoody

Posts: 1401
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline

@DomY, there is a lot of disagreement about polar bear populations, it's kinda a tricky thing to count.
Estimates of populations have risen, as have sightings....but many say that the estimates have risen because the older estimates were way out, and now we're more accurate, and the increased sightings is them starving and coming close to human settlements more often to search for food. The whole thing is horribly politicised, global warming people insist they're dying out, the local populations insist they're plentiful (because they need to hunt them). The more realistic opinion is something like:fuck knows.

You don't know whether polar bears are thriving or dying, and neither does creative...and neither does the WWF. When even the 'officials' disagree/can't give figures, it's not a good idea to start throwing insults around about it.

(in reply to DomYngBlk)

Post #: 43

RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course... - 9/3/2010 8:46:59 AM

DomYngBlk

Posts: 3316
Joined: 3/27/2006
Status: offline

I kind of go with logic. Habitat is disappearing hence the species would be under stress. Kind of similar to the plight of the Gorilla. Hard to count but we do know the habitat is going away. No one is arguing lower Gorilla numbers since there isn't a great amount of Natural resources sitting under them.

(in reply to DCWoody)

Post #: 44

RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course... - 9/3/2010 9:11:51 AM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

Fuck polar bears! They should go extinct! What are they good for anyway?
Keeping the seal population in check? They do that up in Canada every spring without the help of polar bears!
They're not "majestic", "noble" or any other accolades certain people would like to bestow on them! They'd rip your head off and eat it given half a chance!
"Oh! The polar bears this!" "Oh the polar bears that!" Fuck 'em!
Let the Eskimos eradicate them!

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to DomYngBlk)

Post #: 45

RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course... - 9/3/2010 9:17:54 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

So he was believable when he was a critic, but now hes changed his mind, hes a moron.
gottit
bloody eyes hurt from rolling in my head today

Actually, he wasn't believable when he was a critic either....

For all of those coming down on conservatives, please show me an instance of a prominent, credible conservative backing this guy up when he was a critic.

Actually his lies have propped up quite frequently here and eslewhere.

For instance in his second book on AGW he makes the claim that polar bears aren't in decline. This lie has been repeated many many times.

Actually, his "lies" are not just his "lies"...they are the beliefs of many people, including people who ARE qualified scientists in the field of climate change. As for your belief that the statement that polar bears aren't in decline is a lie is just that...YOUR belief. It all depends on which side of the debate you come down on.

As for your direction to Big Daddy's thread, the source he cites does not mention Lumborg at all.

Of course FDD doesn't directly cite Lomborg that's the insidious thing about right wing lies. Once they are told once the blogs, talk radio and FNC repeat the lie over and over again and where it originally came from is obscured. It is the Goebbels quote “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." come to life.

Let's see what the real science is on the matter (not denialists wishful thinking).
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/area/species/polarbear/population/
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/08-1036.1
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=35187
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html

And now a little about the claims from the denialists.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/case-study-polar-bear-junk-sc/

< Message edited by DomKen -- 9/3/2010 9:21:40 AM >

(in reply to CreativeDominant)

Post #: 46

RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course... - 9/7/2010 8:32:15 AM

CreativeDominant

Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

So he was believable when he was a critic, but now hes changed his mind, hes a moron.
gottit
bloody eyes hurt from rolling in my head today

Actually, he wasn't believable when he was a critic either....

For all of those coming down on conservatives, please show me an instance of a prominent, credible conservative backing this guy up when he was a critic.

Actually his lies have propped up quite frequently here and eslewhere.

For instance in his second book on AGW he makes the claim that polar bears aren't in decline. This lie has been repeated many many times.

Actually, his "lies" are not just his "lies"...they are the beliefs of many people, including people who ARE qualified scientists in the field of climate change. As for your belief that the statement that polar bears aren't in decline is a lie is just that...YOUR belief. It all depends on which side of the debate you come down on.

As for your direction to Big Daddy's thread, the source he cites does not mention Lumborg at all.

Of course FDD doesn't directly cite Lomborg that's the insidious thing about right wing lies. Once they are told once the blogs, talk radio and FNC repeat the lie over and over again and where it originally came from is obscured. It is the Goebbels quote “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." come to life.

Sounds suspiciously like left-wing lying tactics 101. Let's face it, DomKen...lies are no more the purview of the right than they are of the left.

quote:

Let's see what the real science is on the matter (not denialists wishful thinking).
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/area/species/polarbear/population/
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/08-1036.1
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=35187
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html

So you send me to a bunch of articles written by left-leaning scientists? Why does what they say make it any more real than those scientists who say this is wrong? There is nothing wrong with denial when your denial comes from scientific findings that state that your scientists are wrong. Tis a circle, DomKen...your side denies my side, my side denies your side. Because it is your side doesn't make it right.

quote:

And now a little about the claims from the denialists.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/case-study-polar-bear-junk-sc/

Yeah...I'm going to believe anything greenpeace has to say without skepticism because they have no other agenda than the "good of the earth", right?

And by the way, DomYngBlk...I'm not a fool. From your own source:

"With 20-25,000 polar bears living in the wild, the species is not currently endangered, but its future is far from certain." Far from certain means they can go either way, doesn't it?

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 47

RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course... - 9/7/2010 1:02:23 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

I gave you the peer reviewed studies which are backed up by data and your response is a handwave? BTW how precisely did you glean the politics of the studies authors?

(in reply to CreativeDominant)

Post #: 48

RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course... - 9/7/2010 5:50:37 PM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

DomKen, what do you think about dark brown blazers for the "Global Warmers", instead of the green ones?

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 49

RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course... - 9/8/2010 7:46:17 AM

CreativeDominant

Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I gave you the peer reviewed studies which are backed up by data and your response is a handwave? BTW how precisely did you glean the politics of the studies authors?

Nice obfuscation, DomKen. Peer review can mean a lot...and it can mean shit. I read several peer-review journals a month as part of my work in an effort to keep abreast of all the changes going on in my professional world. With some journals, it is clear that a genuine effort has been made to look at submitted articles objectively. With some, it is clear that the peers who do the review are merely pushing their own agenda.

Your peer-reviewed articles were reviewed by....who? Other scientists who believe the same way that the authors do? Or by scientists who do not? Or by a healthy mix of those who share the beliefs, those who do not, and those who are waiting for the definitive proof? Given that your articles were published by the likes of The World Wildlife Federation and The Ecological Society of America, I'm pretty sure the articles they chose to highlight are those that come down on their side of this argument...and their side is "earth first, humans last" so forgive me my skepticism.

Call me a cynic but I like those articles which present both sides of the argument.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 50

RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course... - 9/8/2010 8:19:06 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I gave you the peer reviewed studies which are backed up by data and your response is a handwave? BTW how precisely did you glean the politics of the studies authors?

Nice obfuscation, DomKen. Peer review can mean a lot...and it can mean shit. I read several peer-review journals a month as part of my work in an effort to keep abreast of all the changes going on in my professional world. With some journals, it is clear that a genuine effort has been made to look at submitted articles objectively. With some, it is clear that the peers who do the review are merely pushing their own agenda.

Your peer-reviewed articles were reviewed by....who? Other scientists who believe the same way that the authors do? Or by scientists who do not? Or by a healthy mix of those who share the beliefs, those who do not, and those who are waiting for the definitive proof? Given that your articles were published by the likes of The World Wildlife Federation and The Ecological Society of America, I'm pretty sure the articles they chose to highlight are those that come down on their side of this argument...and their side is "earth first, humans last" so forgive me my skepticism.

Call me a cynic but I like those articles which present both sides of the argument.

If you read science at the level of professional journals then you should be smart enough and well educated enough to understand that there aren't two equal sides in most cases.

In this case there is no "other side." Look through the literature yourself. Try and find the primary research that is supportive of your position. There isn't any. The closest you will find is the letter critiqued, quite legitimately, by Greenpeace and it contains no research or data of any kind. Anyone with a brain can see a fast way for an ambitious young scientist to make a big name for themselves is to be the one to present actual proof against AGW. Strangely global warming deniers are almost exclusively older scientists or are in fields unrelated to climate science.

I'm still waiting to hear how you identified the political orientation of 2 US Government employees and scientists at Woods Hole Oceanagraphic Institute amongst others.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)

Post #: 51

RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course... - 9/8/2010 8:38:13 AM

Jeffff

Posts: 12600
Joined: 7/7/2007
Status: offline

FR.......

No one here gives a shit about the science. You could smack folks in the face with science and they would ignore the bruises.

This is a place where the validity of Intelligent Design as science has been debated.

_____________________________

"If you don't live it, it won't come out your horn." Charlie Parker

(in reply to CreativeDominant)

Post #: 52

RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course... - 9/8/2010 9:19:13 AM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Are you kidding? Scientists do use the term "global warming." Actually, "climate change" and "global warming" are not exactly the same thing. "Global warming" refers to the recorded increase in surface temperatures. Obviously the two go hand in hand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

And just so you know, Brain, its not 'global warming' its 'Climate Change'. 'Global Warming' is used to help the uneducated understand what Climate Change is actually doing.

(in reply to joether)

Post #: 53

RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course... - 9/8/2010 11:02:39 AM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Anyone with a brain can see a fast way for an ambitious young scientist to make a big name for themselves is to be the one to present actual proof against AGW. Strangely global warming deniers are almost exclusively older scientists or are in fields unrelated to climate science.

I think you have it exactly backwards.

Many young scientist, wanting to stay in their field, and make a name for themselves, tend not to have the ability or desire to go against an established, and sometimes vicious and vindictive establishment, supported by many media and political figures.

Only very exceptional young scientist (or dumb ones) would try to buck the scientific establishment on such a politically charged issue.

On the other hand, some older scientist, who are established in their field, and aren't really looking for others' approval, can afford to go against the establishment and speak their mind

That's human nature. Been like that for a long time, not only in the AGW debate.

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 54

RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course... - 9/8/2010 12:01:00 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Anyone with a brain can see a fast way for an ambitious young scientist to make a big name for themselves is to be the one to present actual proof against AGW. Strangely global warming deniers are almost exclusively older scientists or are in fields unrelated to climate science.

I think you have it exactly backwards.

Many young scientist, wanting to stay in their field, and make a name for themselves, tend not to have the ability or desire to go against an established, and sometimes vicious and vindictive establishment, supported by many media and political figures.

Only very exceptional young scientist (or dumb ones) would try to buck the scientific establishment on such a politically charged issue.

On the other hand, some older scientist, who are established in their field, and aren't really looking for others' approval, can afford to go against the establishment and speak their mind

That's human nature. Been like that for a long time, not only in the AGW debate.

Firm

You have absolutely no idea how things work in science if you believe the crap you just tried to peddle.

Anyone who studies any field of science knows that a young scientist who simply goes along does not go anywhere. Pick any field you want and see who is pushing the envelope and who is casting doubt on established theory.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Post #: 55

RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course... - 9/8/2010 12:19:24 PM

Hillwilliam

Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

Gotta back Ken on this one. I've been part of the process. A young scientist that "goes along" will end up teaching Biology 101 (or the equivalent Physics, Chem or Geology) in a Jr College for the rest of his life. Only those that come up with something new that upsets a paradigm get on the fast track to a chair at a well known university.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 56

RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course... - 9/8/2010 9:19:59 PM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Gotta back Ken on this one. I've been part of the process. A young scientist that "goes along" will end up teaching Biology 101 (or the equivalent Physics, Chem or Geology) in a Jr College for the rest of his life. Only those that come up with something new that upsets a paradigm get on the fast track to a chair at a well known university.

You pick your battles.

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)

Post #: 57

RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course... - 9/9/2010 5:41:45 AM

DomYngBlk

Posts: 3316
Joined: 3/27/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

So he was believable when he was a critic, but now hes changed his mind, hes a moron.
gottit
bloody eyes hurt from rolling in my head today

Actually, he wasn't believable when he was a critic either....

For all of those coming down on conservatives, please show me an instance of a prominent, credible conservative backing this guy up when he was a critic.

Actually his lies have propped up quite frequently here and eslewhere.

For instance in his second book on AGW he makes the claim that polar bears aren't in decline. This lie has been repeated many many times.

Actually, his "lies" are not just his "lies"...they are the beliefs of many people, including people who ARE qualified scientists in the field of climate change. As for your belief that the statement that polar bears aren't in decline is a lie is just that...YOUR belief. It all depends on which side of the debate you come down on.

As for your direction to Big Daddy's thread, the source he cites does not mention Lumborg at all.

Of course FDD doesn't directly cite Lomborg that's the insidious thing about right wing lies. Once they are told once the blogs, talk radio and FNC repeat the lie over and over again and where it originally came from is obscured. It is the Goebbels quote “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." come to life.
Sounds suspiciously like left-wing lying tactics 101. Let's face it, DomKen...lies are no more the purview of the right than they are of the left.

quote:

Let's see what the real science is on the matter (not denialists wishful thinking).
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/area/species/polarbear/population/
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/08-1036.1
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=35187
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html

So you send me to a bunch of articles written by left-leaning scientists? Why does what they say make it any more real than those scientists who say this is wrong? There is nothing wrong with denial when your denial comes from scientific findings that state that your scientists are wrong. Tis a circle, DomKen...your side denies my side, my side denies your side. Because it is your side doesn't make it right.

quote:

And now a little about the claims from the denialists.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/case-study-polar-bear-junk-sc/

Yeah...I'm going to believe anything greenpeace has to say without skepticism because they have no other agenda than the "good of the earth", right?

And by the way, DomYngBlk...I'm not a fool. From your own source:

"With 20-25,000 polar bears living in the wild, the species is not currently endangered, but its future is far from certain." Far from certain means they can go either way, doesn't it?

My mistake, I assumed a creative person such as yourself would be blessed with the gift of analysis and an ability to be logical.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)

Post #: 58

RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course... - 9/9/2010 4:04:22 PM

CreativeDominant

Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

So he was believable when he was a critic, but now hes changed his mind, hes a moron.
gottit
bloody eyes hurt from rolling in my head today

Actually, he wasn't believable when he was a critic either....

For all of those coming down on conservatives, please show me an instance of a prominent, credible conservative backing this guy up when he was a critic.

Actually his lies have propped up quite frequently here and eslewhere.

For instance in his second book on AGW he makes the claim that polar bears aren't in decline. This lie has been repeated many many times.

Actually, his "lies" are not just his "lies"...they are the beliefs of many people, including people who ARE qualified scientists in the field of climate change. As for your belief that the statement that polar bears aren't in decline is a lie is just that...YOUR belief. It all depends on which side of the debate you come down on.

As for your direction to Big Daddy's thread, the source he cites does not mention Lumborg at all.

Of course FDD doesn't directly cite Lomborg that's the insidious thing about right wing lies. Once they are told once the blogs, talk radio and FNC repeat the lie over and over again and where it originally came from is obscured. It is the Goebbels quote “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." come to life.
Sounds suspiciously like left-wing lying tactics 101. Let's face it, DomKen...lies are no more the purview of the right than they are of the left.

quote:

Let's see what the real science is on the matter (not denialists wishful thinking).
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/area/species/polarbear/population/
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/08-1036.1
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=35187
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html
So you send me to a bunch of articles written by left-leaning scientists? Why does what they say make it any more real than those scientists who say this is wrong? There is nothing wrong with denial when your denial comes from scientific findings that state that your scientists are wrong. Tis a circle, DomKen...your side denies my side, my side denies your side. Because it is your side doesn't make it right.

quote:

And now a little about the claims from the denialists.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/case-study-polar-bear-junk-sc/

Yeah...I'm going to believe anything greenpeace has to say without skepticism because they have no other agenda than the "good of the earth", right?

And by the way, DomYngBlk...I'm not a fool. From your own source:

"With 20-25,000 polar bears living in the wild, the species is not currently endangered, but its future is far from certain." Far from certain means they can go either way, doesn't it?

My mistake, I assumed a creative person such as yourself would be blessed with the gift of analysis and an ability to be logical.
Your right about that...it is that very gift of analysis and logic that enables me to be able to read all that I read with an eye for discernment. Articles paid for by, and published in, magazines that are spreaders of the "environment first, man evil, man last" mode are the types of articles that are going to be looked at with discernment. Articles published in the National Review receive that same discernment as do political articles in the Journal of Orthopedic Medicine, the Journal of The American Medical Association, the Journal of the American Chiropractic Association, etc.. They all have their own agenda. When they stick to what they proclaim to be about...whether it is orthopedics or chiropractic, airplane flight or food, I'm fine and the eye focus mellows.

(in reply to DomYngBlk)

Post #: 59

RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course... - 9/10/2010 5:56:16 AM

DomYngBlk

Posts: 3316
Joined: 3/27/2006
Status: offline

Reading comprehension would be a good first place to start......

(in reply to CreativeDominant)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course | The Upshot Yahoo! News

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.110