Dude, you can either get on topic and deal with the fact that I've provided evidence you're full of shit... or you can continue to attempt a pathetic ad hominem which will just make me touch myself with the literal sexual thrill I get when I realize I'm superior to yet another meat bag like you.
There you go, peer reviewed paper refuting cook's paper.
What you didn't understand because you were so biased against the source was that there was actually a valid argument being made.
The argument has been made by multiple sources in and out of academia.
You cannot simply dismiss all criticism this way. You need to address the argument. If you can't do that, then you are not competent to have a discussion of this nature. It is a prerequisite that you have to have some intellectual curiosity and integrity in matters such as these. Simply being mulish and tribalistically political is not acceptable.
If you want to be scientific then you need to put all that baggage down for a moment and just address the issue tabula rasa.
Your man actually tried to publisher another paper that corrected some of his errors while reasserting the same position... his paper didn't even make it past peer review this time because unlike before... people were paying attention.
His methodology was shit and his entire process was more akin to what you see out of creationists.
This is why this field of science has gotten a bad reputation. Its been polluted with political interests and corrupt cronies seeking cash and status.
Its sophistry and cargo cult science.
And because I know the truth is just a word to you... let me hit you where you live... you're losing the political argument as well.
I know that's all you really care about and like all sophists you have made the cardinal error that you can win by trying to win above all else.
Where as the philosophies that gave birth to the discipline of science itself don't try to win. They instead try to be right. And in being right... they ultimately win.
Your victories thus far are transitory and will be remembered with scorn. Eventually people will smurky openly at everything you're saying the same way we do at the ice age predictions from the 1970s.
What you people don't understand because you have the memories of goldfish is that this argument has been going on long enough for your predictions of the future to catch up with the present.
For example, New York was supposed to be under water by 2015.
Well... that didn't happen did it?
Like the joke about the old Soviet Politburo, "The future is always the same... it is the past that keeps changing"...
You have to keep retroactively altering your own history to white wash your unbroken series of failed predictions.
The models are updated at least once a year to bring them in line with what ACTUALLY happened and what the same models predicted a year ago is conveniently memory holed... again and again and again.
And then when anyone contradicts you, you pull out this argument from authority or popularity that "well, we have most of the scientists with us"...
Only you don't. At best you have half of them. That's not conclusive of anything but a controversy.
And given how you demonize anyone that contradicts you, a fair number of people either don't want to get involved and keep their opinions a secret or pretend to support you out of fear for their jobs.
And it is in this environment that you proclaim your consensus.
You're a shit merchant. And the more people try your wares, the fewer buyers you're going to have.
Time is on my side... Every year you get weaker and look more foolish... and every year people like me appear more credible. The only way to reverse your decline in credibility is to stop trying to win and instead try to be RIGHT. Actually right. F' the politics. Try to ACTUALLY be right. No shaping your data to fit your desired theory. Just take the data in and form a theory tabula rasa from the data. Try it.
And then you might actually start to get some credibility back. The price will be you're going to have to change your argument. Because your argument isn't right. It just is what the politicians find the most convenient. And it isn't going to win in the end.
And your phase 2 point only got to that number by citing any credence to the notion of AGW even marginally as being evidence of 100 percent approval of the IPCC position.
Never mind that only about.3 percent actually held that actual view.
All the other positions were more nuanced. And by that definition most 'deniers' are supporters of your position because most "deniers"... a sad attempt to equate people that question your premise with holocaust deniers... but the thing is that most of the "deniers" believe in some amount of AGW... they just don't think it is as big a deal. But using Cook's methodology, they'd all be AGW supporters.
Your paper is bullshit.
And not only was it bullshit but Cook TRIED to publish another paper after this one to correct mistakes in the first one... and because people were actually paying attention... his paper didn't even pass peer review. That's how full of shit it was.
So you have no response to the peer reviewed paper that showed your 97% paper was bullshit?
So... I predicted that you actually have no legitimate position and you're only capable of making the same sad ad hominems over and over again?
How could I have called you so perfectly like that. I mean, I clearly wasn't even trying and I still pegged you.
Could it be that you're that fucking transparent? Seems so.
Better luck next time, cupcake. Your cargo cult science is going down.
Look at the trends. I know you don't actually care about science so instead look at the prospects of your little cause... it grows weaker by the day while politically the opposition gets stronger.
True... mostly in the US and UK... but that's where this crap is coming from in the first place.
You're losing. And the reason you're losing is because all you care about is winning in an argument where being RIGHT is more important the typical identity politics bullshit you morons use in all contexts.
If you cared more about being right than winning... you'd have won. But that would mean modifying your position to suit the data rather than changing the data to suit your position. I know... you don't want to do that. And it doesn't matter anymore.
Your position is so tanished with transparently bogus political power plays and fallacious straw men and endless ad hominems that you're just not that credible anymore.
And what is funnier still is that you've been so degenerate about it that scientists are starting to pick apart your bullshit. The various peer review boards are all talking about people like you and how they can deal with you.
You've been so crazy that you've caused the normally non-confrontational and conservative science community to start working rather seriously on taking you apart.
And the fact that you ignored the peer reviewed paper I sent you and just went right back to your ad hominems just shows you're another of these alarmist robots that has no ability to think for himself.
You're a joke. And more people are realizing it every day.
it was clear they had never played with a chat bot before. The simulate a personality.
They have subroutines where if they're not doing well they start making hostile remarks on the assumption that the person talking to them is fucking with them.
Which means if you actually ask them honest questions and they're not doing very well they get mad at you.
Rather than make the chatbots interesting or more human like... they're just predictable and boring.
I'd prefer if they removed the faux emotional subroutines from the chatbots. It doesn't fool anyone but the fools.
I see, so you troll as AC because you're afraid of other AC trolls?
I don't troll people, idiot. Did I post in response to your comment? Who is the original poster of this thread? Oh that's right... I am.
Which means YOU engaged me not the other way around.
And just FYI, I get trolled by at least one fucktard AC all the time. I call him Bingo... Bingo the clowno.
And he can be relied upon to respond to every thread I create with something along the lines of "you're stupid" or "you're a bad person"... he uses harsher language than that but that is the general message. He never offers any reason for what he says.
I picked him up when I criticized a post about psychology and said that it wasn't really a true science and we had to take conclusions from it with a grain of salt.
Since then, I've had bingo... he's been following me for months.
So for you to sit there and presume superiority over me when I have to deal with bingo and you don't have to deal with shit... is a little stupid. What is more, you don't get to comment on my record because you've gone out of your way not to have one.
Your entire position is hypocritical.
Kindly do not presume to comment on people that actually log in. Log in and THEN call me an ass if you like. But you don't get to sit there in the AC shadows and throw shit at the people that actually log in.
If you do anything other than stop being a fucking hypocrite OR log in... Then you can go fuck yourself with a rake sideways.
You keep attacking the source as if there was only one source that verified the problem.
Since you're addicted to ad hominem, I'll shift sources and we'll see if you're able to form a coherent thought without resorting to fallacious logic again: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
That cites a peer reviewed audit of the study that showed Cook's methodology and conclusions to be in error.
Also noted in that article is that Cook submitted another paper along the same lines and this time his paper did not even pass peer review.
*gets out lube*
Bend over. I'm jamming your pretensions right back up the slimy hole they came out of...:-)
Nice try... I was not talking about papers that said X was skeptical.
I was instead talking about a paper that said X was pro the UN climate change position.
And just as you were able to find scientists that said they were not in fact skeptical, a lot of the scientists cited in the 97% figure were equally baffled.
If you look at the data, what you find is that the scientific community is actually SPLIT. You have no grand consensus and I don't have to prove that there is a consensus for my opinion to refute your position. My position is not that there is a consensus for my position. But rather that there is not one for yours.
Its nothing new. The "bleaching" people talk about is something coral just does when conditions fall out of the very narrow specs that permit it to live.
What is not understood by many is that these specs can and are adjusted. So yes... specs change and the coral dies. Possibly a lot of it. But that just means it has to change its specs to whatever the new standard is... and it does that... and new coral grows on top of the dead coral... which is how those islands in the Caribbean were formed.
This has been going on for millions of years. It isn't anything new.
Equal numbers of other people do not have the skills.
really, if you idiots don't stop harping on this issue, the only way they're going to improve those numbers is by replacing half their employees with Indians. There you go... company is now full of brown people. Happy now? Because now no one has a job.
Look, you can't compare straight population numbers with how many people are hired in given professions. You have to consider graduates from the colleges that have the required degrees or get some sort of baseline as to what portion of the population would be qualified to do the work.
THEN you can compare the numbers.
Simply taking the general census data and then comparing the numbers is what someone that doesn't understand statistics would do. And reporting the study without irony merely means everyone that took the study seriously doesn't understand how statistics work.
Coral is one of the oldest life forms in the world. It has seen worse than a minor temperature change.
The reefs survived the ice ages.
The coral is is only fragile in the sense that one of your skin cells is fragile while you as a larger organism are not as fragile. The coral can survive having large amounts of it killed by environmental changes... and that sort of thing is part of its normal life cycle. Coral goes through this all the time.
Your notion that all the coral will die or too much of it will die is not supported by any sound understanding of what is going on. The speed with which the coral dies and recolonizes means that it does adapt very quickly to changes. Part of this adaptation is dying. But it adapts in the process.
As to your point about reading the abstracts. That's not enough. You need to actually have the study itself vetted. And peer review does not do that.
These studies are getting busted all the time for making things up or using really sloppy methodology that could be "interpreted" to mean anything... often transparently the author had a conclusion they wanted before even starting the study.
That isn't real science. That's what creationists do. You have to do your study with an open mind and accept whatever the study might say. No forming your theory before the data comes in and no shaping the data to fit your theory. It is FINE to have a hypothesis before you start the study. But it can't go beyond that until you've actually got the data in... and then you base the theory on the data... you do not shape the data to equal your hypothesis.
The atmospheric studies used to make this argument are based on the planet Venus where CO2 is not a trace gas but is actually one of the dominant gases in the Venusian atmosphere. On earth, CO2 is a trace gas.
Its impact on climate heat trapping is unlikely to be relevant beyond its relative atmospheric concentrations which are tiny.
As to CO2 being a green house gas... Every gas is a green house gas in that every gas absorbs certain spectrums of light.
CO2's distinct absorption specturm is also very small. Nearly all of the spectrum that CO2 absorbs is already absorbed by water vapor and there is far more water vapor in the air than there is CO2.
Thus you're talking about a trace gas with a sliver of the EM spectrum.
The argument that a relatively small change in the percentage of the atmosphere that is made up of CO2 will lead to run away global warming is asinine.
And to further back up my position, the climate models that keep being heralded as proving the theory keep failing to predict anything accurately requiring them to be retroactively altered and past mistakes white washed.
Listening to the climate change lobby reminds me of listening to the old Soviet Politburo in that "the future is always the same... it is the past that keeps changing". That is a bit of dark humor from the Cold War. That is, the future prediction always remains the same... but you have to keep changing what you said in the past and white washing out of the bogus predictions.
Behold the bright communist future... never mind that we said we'd already be living in paradise by now 30 years ago. Keep working comrades for the brave new world.
And your point is "beware climate change, the world is going to go through these changes... never mind that we said New York City would already be under water by 2015."
This whole AGW argument has been going on long enough that your far out predictions are catching up with present time. And without exception they're all wrong.
I mean... you've been wrong about EVERYTHING. And yet you presume to claim you can predict a future you've thus far utterly failed to predict with any accuracy... even in gross terms. I'm not asking you to predict what temperature it will be on any given day. But you can't even get your graphs straight.
A little humility would go a long way from you people. You don't have the track record to justify this arrogance.
Wrong. The consensus myth is based on fallacious statistical studies of published papers.
Many of the scientists cited as being in support of AGW by such papers have openly objected.
The objections range from saying they are opposed to it, to saying their support is over stated because they think there needs to be additional qualifications, to saying that their paper actually made no relevant reference to AGW and they don't understand how the paper was used to arrive at that conclusion.
Further analysis of the methodology of the statistical studies show that they had a graduate student review roughly 800 papers a day. Given that that is entirely impossible unless the kid is super human or he's just doing a word search... we can conclude that he was just doing a word search. And that being the case, they can't actually say the papers were in support of anything but rather that a given paper used some collection of words taken to be associated with climate change.
That cannot be used to determine support or opposition. Thus the statistical study is bogus on the count that the people cited as supporting it are often objecting and that the methodology itself is unsupportably sloppy.
Oh this should be good... *gets more popcorn and lube*
No, coral has adapted to extreme changes in the past. Coral is killed very easily by almost any tiny change. A small change in temperature kills coral. Introducing almost any chemical that it isn't familiar with will kill it. Any kind of abrasion by anything but water will often kill it.... Really it just goes on and on.
And yet it is one of the most ancient species on this planet. Why don't you actually think about that for a change? How has such an ancient species survived so long despite being killed by nearly anything?
Because dying like that is part of its survival strategy. It isn't a barn owl or a ferret or a dolphin. Its survival strategies are very very different. The islands of the Caribbean are BUILT out of dead coral. A fair amount of the sand is pulverized coral.
The oceans are fucking teeming with the leavings of dead coral. And we're talking about dead coral from way back when. This isn't new.
As to paper mill trees taking up space that used to host a native forest... you could say the same thing about the field we planted wheat in or the field we planted soy beans in or the place we put your house on.
Yet I don't see you morons saying we shouldn't eat food because all the farm land should be returned to prairie land. Why is that? Why are you bitching about the tree farms which are relatively more in harmony with nature but you don't complain about wheat fields?
There is a tendency amongst people like you to respond with childish feelings rather than cold rationality. And it doesn't serve you well when it comes to discussions about ecology.
Nature doesn't give a flying fuck what you feel about anything. Mother nature is a cold blooded cunt. Yeah, I used the C word. She's utterly heartless. She deals in survival. You either adapt or you die. And she sheds not a fucking tear for anything that doesn't make the cut. What you're cute and cuddlingly and make cute cooing noises when your belly is rubbed? Her only question is "did you survive?" No? Then enjoy oblivion.
If you have a rational ecological point, I'd love to hear it.
But note this, the trees we harvest are not immortal in the first case. You do know trees die right? They're not highlander trees. And on top of that, if you just let them all fall on top of each other in the forest... in most cases that means the forest is going to burn.
Which is further funny because people like you don't like forests to burn. Never mind that the native americans burned the forests and the fields all the time. It was something they actively did to control their environment. Whenever the undergrowth started to get thick, the native americans burned it.
And I cite them not because I think they're better ecologists than us, but because people like you tend to think of them as pure unreprochable guardians of the earth. So perhaps pointing out they intentionally burned the forests with some regularity might cause you to pull your head out of your ass for a moment.
As to what I'm able to look beyond... your perceptions are so limited and scripted that you can't even be credited with having real opinions. Everything you believe is what someone else told you to believe. You're more a puppet than a man. And you presume to judge me?
Prove to me you're not just a robot. Break with the script for a moment. Show me that you're able to have an original thought. Something YOU came up with on your own.
You might not like what I have to say... but at least what I say came out of my own mind which is more than you can claim.
... Sigh. Size is relative to the number of actors responding is it not?
If you knock a big building down and there's only one person there to rebuild it then it will take a long time to rebuild it. If there are lots of people then the building could be rebuilt rapidly.
So yes, the reef is large but the amount of coral that will survive will also be proportionally huge. What will likely happen is a certain layer of the coral will get trashed. Certain depths are going to have more or less favorable conditions and depths outside of those ranges are going to get hit first and harder. While the coral that is relatively shielded which will be all along the reef... will be less effected or not effected at all. And the uneffected coral along with coral that survives in the damaged areas will recolonize the reef.
This is a natural part of the life cycle of coral.
Complaining about this is like complaining that a pine forest burns down. Pine cones... the seed pods dropped by pine trees, only open after a fire. The heat causes the cones to open. What is more, the forests basically encourage fire at intervals. The fires are thus part of the natural life cycle of pine forests. They grow, they kill off all other plant species under them by making the soil acidic with their needles, and then they dry out, burn, and reseed the forest with only their own species. The pine trees get a head start in populating the forest... and by the time any other species starts to invade the pine needles are already getting spread on the soil both blanketing the earth so that saplings can't get sunlight and making the soil acidic. Rinse and repeat.
This is just nature.
The point of a coral reef is not for you to take pictures of it and go "oh pretty"... its a natural dynamic system and it has dealt with far worse than anything that is happening to it today.
It is important to remember that coral is a very old species. It is older than crocodiles and other similar highly adaptive species that have survived through some very rough times.
How does coral survive these things despite dying so easily? Because it adapts rapidly. It is easily killed. But it adapts quickly as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, you can either get on topic and deal with the fact that I've provided evidence you're full of shit... or you can continue to attempt a pathetic ad hominem which will just make me touch myself with the literal sexual thrill I get when I realize I'm superior to yet another meat bag like you.
You're fucking human garbage.
Either get on topic or fuck off.
you're defending cook's paper... so... yes.
Its difficult to keep all the anon cowards straight... which is probably why you fucks don't log in.
Anyway:
http://link.springer.com/artic...
Boom shaka laka.
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
There you go, peer reviewed paper refuting cook's paper.
What you didn't understand because you were so biased against the source was that there was actually a valid argument being made.
The argument has been made by multiple sources in and out of academia.
You cannot simply dismiss all criticism this way. You need to address the argument. If you can't do that, then you are not competent to have a discussion of this nature. It is a prerequisite that you have to have some intellectual curiosity and integrity in matters such as these. Simply being mulish and tribalistically political is not acceptable.
If you want to be scientific then you need to put all that baggage down for a moment and just address the issue tabula rasa.
What's this? An anonymous coward commenting on the posting history of someone that actually logs in?
Do tell us, sir... what is your posting history?
Because if that isn't exposed to everyone on the site like mine is... then you're a fucking hypocrite.
The question is of course rhetorical... I point that out because on top of being a hypocrite you're also stupid.
Oh you want peer reviewed rebuttals?
Done:
http://link.springer.com/artic...
Your man actually tried to publisher another paper that corrected some of his errors while reasserting the same position... his paper didn't even make it past peer review this time because unlike before... people were paying attention.
His methodology was shit and his entire process was more akin to what you see out of creationists.
This is why this field of science has gotten a bad reputation. Its been polluted with political interests and corrupt cronies seeking cash and status.
Its sophistry and cargo cult science.
And because I know the truth is just a word to you... let me hit you where you live... you're losing the political argument as well.
I know that's all you really care about and like all sophists you have made the cardinal error that you can win by trying to win above all else.
Where as the philosophies that gave birth to the discipline of science itself don't try to win. They instead try to be right. And in being right... they ultimately win.
Your victories thus far are transitory and will be remembered with scorn. Eventually people will smurky openly at everything you're saying the same way we do at the ice age predictions from the 1970s.
What you people don't understand because you have the memories of goldfish is that this argument has been going on long enough for your predictions of the future to catch up with the present.
For example, New York was supposed to be under water by 2015.
Well... that didn't happen did it?
Like the joke about the old Soviet Politburo, "The future is always the same... it is the past that keeps changing"...
You have to keep retroactively altering your own history to white wash your unbroken series of failed predictions.
The models are updated at least once a year to bring them in line with what ACTUALLY happened and what the same models predicted a year ago is conveniently memory holed... again and again and again.
And then when anyone contradicts you, you pull out this argument from authority or popularity that "well, we have most of the scientists with us"...
Only you don't. At best you have half of them. That's not conclusive of anything but a controversy.
And given how you demonize anyone that contradicts you, a fair number of people either don't want to get involved and keep their opinions a secret or pretend to support you out of fear for their jobs.
And it is in this environment that you proclaim your consensus.
You're a shit merchant. And the more people try your wares, the fewer buyers you're going to have.
Time is on my side... Every year you get weaker and look more foolish... and every year people like me appear more credible. The only way to reverse your decline in credibility is to stop trying to win and instead try to be RIGHT. Actually right. F' the politics. Try to ACTUALLY be right. No shaping your data to fit your desired theory. Just take the data in and form a theory tabula rasa from the data. Try it.
And then you might actually start to get some credibility back. The price will be you're going to have to change your argument. Because your argument isn't right. It just is what the politicians find the most convenient. And it isn't going to win in the end.
http://link.springer.com/artic...
And your phase 2 point only got to that number by citing any credence to the notion of AGW even marginally as being evidence of 100 percent approval of the IPCC position.
Never mind that only about .3 percent actually held that actual view.
All the other positions were more nuanced. And by that definition most 'deniers' are supporters of your position because most "deniers"... a sad attempt to equate people that question your premise with holocaust deniers... but the thing is that most of the "deniers" believe in some amount of AGW... they just don't think it is as big a deal. But using Cook's methodology, they'd all be AGW supporters.
Your paper is bullshit.
And not only was it bullshit but Cook TRIED to publish another paper after this one to correct mistakes in the first one... and because people were actually paying attention... his paper didn't even pass peer review. That's how full of shit it was.
So no. Try harder. You don't impress me.
So you have no response to the peer reviewed paper that showed your 97% paper was bullshit?
So... I predicted that you actually have no legitimate position and you're only capable of making the same sad ad hominems over and over again?
How could I have called you so perfectly like that. I mean, I clearly wasn't even trying and I still pegged you.
Could it be that you're that fucking transparent? Seems so.
Better luck next time, cupcake. Your cargo cult science is going down.
Look at the trends. I know you don't actually care about science so instead look at the prospects of your little cause... it grows weaker by the day while politically the opposition gets stronger.
True... mostly in the US and UK... but that's where this crap is coming from in the first place.
You're losing. And the reason you're losing is because all you care about is winning in an argument where being RIGHT is more important the typical identity politics bullshit you morons use in all contexts.
If you cared more about being right than winning... you'd have won. But that would mean modifying your position to suit the data rather than changing the data to suit your position. I know... you don't want to do that. And it doesn't matter anymore.
Your position is so tanished with transparently bogus political power plays and fallacious straw men and endless ad hominems that you're just not that credible anymore.
And what is funnier still is that you've been so degenerate about it that scientists are starting to pick apart your bullshit. The various peer review boards are all talking about people like you and how they can deal with you.
You've been so crazy that you've caused the normally non-confrontational and conservative science community to start working rather seriously on taking you apart.
And the fact that you ignored the peer reviewed paper I sent you and just went right back to your ad hominems just shows you're another of these alarmist robots that has no ability to think for himself.
You're a joke. And more people are realizing it every day.
it was clear they had never played with a chat bot before. The simulate a personality.
They have subroutines where if they're not doing well they start making hostile remarks on the assumption that the person talking to them is fucking with them.
Which means if you actually ask them honest questions and they're not doing very well they get mad at you.
Rather than make the chatbots interesting or more human like... they're just predictable and boring.
I'd prefer if they removed the faux emotional subroutines from the chatbots. It doesn't fool anyone but the fools.
I see, so you troll as AC because you're afraid of other AC trolls?
I don't troll people, idiot. Did I post in response to your comment? Who is the original poster of this thread? Oh that's right... I am.
Which means YOU engaged me not the other way around.
And just FYI, I get trolled by at least one fucktard AC all the time. I call him Bingo... Bingo the clowno.
And he can be relied upon to respond to every thread I create with something along the lines of "you're stupid" or "you're a bad person"... he uses harsher language than that but that is the general message. He never offers any reason for what he says.
I picked him up when I criticized a post about psychology and said that it wasn't really a true science and we had to take conclusions from it with a grain of salt.
Since then, I've had bingo... he's been following me for months.
So for you to sit there and presume superiority over me when I have to deal with bingo and you don't have to deal with shit... is a little stupid. What is more, you don't get to comment on my record because you've gone out of your way not to have one.
Your entire position is hypocritical.
Kindly do not presume to comment on people that actually log in. Log in and THEN call me an ass if you like. But you don't get to sit there in the AC shadows and throw shit at the people that actually log in.
If you do anything other than stop being a fucking hypocrite OR log in... Then you can go fuck yourself with a rake sideways.
You keep attacking the source as if there was only one source that verified the problem.
Since you're addicted to ad hominem, I'll shift sources and we'll see if you're able to form a coherent thought without resorting to fallacious logic again:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
That cites a peer reviewed audit of the study that showed Cook's methodology and conclusions to be in error.
Also noted in that article is that Cook submitted another paper along the same lines and this time his paper did not even pass peer review.
*gets out lube*
Bend over. I'm jamming your pretensions right back up the slimy hole they came out of... :-)
You cited no link to this phase 1 versus phase 2.
The forbes article said nothing about it and neither did your subsequent citations.
Cite your source please.
Absent this information your argument boils down to ad hominem.
We've always had those people. We just never took them seriously. Its the neophytes that keep mistaking these people as anything more than idiots.
Oh look, its a snarky AC who rather than having an intelligent comment decides to front baseless insults and sarcasm as a position.
There is a reason people like you post AC... its because you're stupid... and you know it.
Nice try... I was not talking about papers that said X was skeptical.
I was instead talking about a paper that said X was pro the UN climate change position.
And just as you were able to find scientists that said they were not in fact skeptical, a lot of the scientists cited in the 97% figure were equally baffled.
If you look at the data, what you find is that the scientific community is actually SPLIT. You have no grand consensus and I don't have to prove that there is a consensus for my opinion to refute your position. My position is not that there is a consensus for my position. But rather that there is not one for yours.
link?
Its nothing new. The "bleaching" people talk about is something coral just does when conditions fall out of the very narrow specs that permit it to live.
What is not understood by many is that these specs can and are adjusted. So yes... specs change and the coral dies. Possibly a lot of it. But that just means it has to change its specs to whatever the new standard is... and it does that... and new coral grows on top of the dead coral... which is how those islands in the Caribbean were formed.
This has been going on for millions of years. It isn't anything new.
Equal numbers of other people do not have the skills.
really, if you idiots don't stop harping on this issue, the only way they're going to improve those numbers is by replacing half their employees with Indians. There you go... company is now full of brown people. Happy now? Because now no one has a job.
Look, you can't compare straight population numbers with how many people are hired in given professions. You have to consider graduates from the colleges that have the required degrees or get some sort of baseline as to what portion of the population would be qualified to do the work.
THEN you can compare the numbers.
Simply taking the general census data and then comparing the numbers is what someone that doesn't understand statistics would do. And reporting the study without irony merely means everyone that took the study seriously doesn't understand how statistics work.
Coral is one of the oldest life forms in the world. It has seen worse than a minor temperature change.
The reefs survived the ice ages.
The coral is is only fragile in the sense that one of your skin cells is fragile while you as a larger organism are not as fragile. The coral can survive having large amounts of it killed by environmental changes... and that sort of thing is part of its normal life cycle. Coral goes through this all the time.
Your notion that all the coral will die or too much of it will die is not supported by any sound understanding of what is going on. The speed with which the coral dies and recolonizes means that it does adapt very quickly to changes. Part of this adaptation is dying. But it adapts in the process.
And yet it happened:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...
Also this notion that peer review catches all frauds is laughable:
http://www.nature.com/news/pub...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://articles.mercola.com/si...
http://arstechnica.com/science...
http://www.the-scientist.com/?...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04...
As to your point about reading the abstracts. That's not enough. You need to actually have the study itself vetted. And peer review does not do that.
These studies are getting busted all the time for making things up or using really sloppy methodology that could be "interpreted" to mean anything... often transparently the author had a conclusion they wanted before even starting the study.
That isn't real science. That's what creationists do. You have to do your study with an open mind and accept whatever the study might say. No forming your theory before the data comes in and no shaping the data to fit your theory. It is FINE to have a hypothesis before you start the study. But it can't go beyond that until you've actually got the data in... and then you base the theory on the data... you do not shape the data to equal your hypothesis.
And that is frequently what is going on.
I think I'll have to channel my inner Leonidas and say:
"Try me."
The atmospheric studies used to make this argument are based on the planet Venus where CO2 is not a trace gas but is actually one of the dominant gases in the Venusian atmosphere. On earth, CO2 is a trace gas.
Its impact on climate heat trapping is unlikely to be relevant beyond its relative atmospheric concentrations which are tiny.
As to CO2 being a green house gas... Every gas is a green house gas in that every gas absorbs certain spectrums of light.
CO2's distinct absorption specturm is also very small. Nearly all of the spectrum that CO2 absorbs is already absorbed by water vapor and there is far more water vapor in the air than there is CO2.
Thus you're talking about a trace gas with a sliver of the EM spectrum.
The argument that a relatively small change in the percentage of the atmosphere that is made up of CO2 will lead to run away global warming is asinine.
And to further back up my position, the climate models that keep being heralded as proving the theory keep failing to predict anything accurately requiring them to be retroactively altered and past mistakes white washed.
Listening to the climate change lobby reminds me of listening to the old Soviet Politburo in that "the future is always the same... it is the past that keeps changing". That is a bit of dark humor from the Cold War. That is, the future prediction always remains the same... but you have to keep changing what you said in the past and white washing out of the bogus predictions.
Behold the bright communist future... never mind that we said we'd already be living in paradise by now 30 years ago. Keep working comrades for the brave new world.
And your point is "beware climate change, the world is going to go through these changes... never mind that we said New York City would already be under water by 2015."
This whole AGW argument has been going on long enough that your far out predictions are catching up with present time. And without exception they're all wrong.
I mean... you've been wrong about EVERYTHING. And yet you presume to claim you can predict a future you've thus far utterly failed to predict with any accuracy... even in gross terms. I'm not asking you to predict what temperature it will be on any given day. But you can't even get your graphs straight.
A little humility would go a long way from you people. You don't have the track record to justify this arrogance.
http://www.populartechnology.n...
Wrong. The consensus myth is based on fallacious statistical studies of published papers.
Many of the scientists cited as being in support of AGW by such papers have openly objected.
The objections range from saying they are opposed to it, to saying their support is over stated because they think there needs to be additional qualifications, to saying that their paper actually made no relevant reference to AGW and they don't understand how the paper was used to arrive at that conclusion.
Further analysis of the methodology of the statistical studies show that they had a graduate student review roughly 800 papers a day. Given that that is entirely impossible unless the kid is super human or he's just doing a word search... we can conclude that he was just doing a word search. And that being the case, they can't actually say the papers were in support of anything but rather that a given paper used some collection of words taken to be associated with climate change.
That cannot be used to determine support or opposition. Thus the statistical study is bogus on the count that the people cited as supporting it are often objecting and that the methodology itself is unsupportably sloppy.
Oh this should be good... *gets more popcorn and lube*
No, coral has adapted to extreme changes in the past. Coral is killed very easily by almost any tiny change. A small change in temperature kills coral. Introducing almost any chemical that it isn't familiar with will kill it. Any kind of abrasion by anything but water will often kill it.... Really it just goes on and on.
And yet it is one of the most ancient species on this planet. Why don't you actually think about that for a change? How has such an ancient species survived so long despite being killed by nearly anything?
Because dying like that is part of its survival strategy. It isn't a barn owl or a ferret or a dolphin. Its survival strategies are very very different. The islands of the Caribbean are BUILT out of dead coral. A fair amount of the sand is pulverized coral.
The oceans are fucking teeming with the leavings of dead coral. And we're talking about dead coral from way back when. This isn't new.
As to paper mill trees taking up space that used to host a native forest... you could say the same thing about the field we planted wheat in or the field we planted soy beans in or the place we put your house on.
Yet I don't see you morons saying we shouldn't eat food because all the farm land should be returned to prairie land. Why is that? Why are you bitching about the tree farms which are relatively more in harmony with nature but you don't complain about wheat fields?
There is a tendency amongst people like you to respond with childish feelings rather than cold rationality. And it doesn't serve you well when it comes to discussions about ecology.
Nature doesn't give a flying fuck what you feel about anything. Mother nature is a cold blooded cunt. Yeah, I used the C word. She's utterly heartless. She deals in survival. You either adapt or you die. And she sheds not a fucking tear for anything that doesn't make the cut. What you're cute and cuddlingly and make cute cooing noises when your belly is rubbed? Her only question is "did you survive?" No? Then enjoy oblivion.
If you have a rational ecological point, I'd love to hear it.
But note this, the trees we harvest are not immortal in the first case. You do know trees die right? They're not highlander trees. And on top of that, if you just let them all fall on top of each other in the forest... in most cases that means the forest is going to burn.
Which is further funny because people like you don't like forests to burn. Never mind that the native americans burned the forests and the fields all the time. It was something they actively did to control their environment. Whenever the undergrowth started to get thick, the native americans burned it.
And I cite them not because I think they're better ecologists than us, but because people like you tend to think of them as pure unreprochable guardians of the earth. So perhaps pointing out they intentionally burned the forests with some regularity might cause you to pull your head out of your ass for a moment.
As to what I'm able to look beyond... your perceptions are so limited and scripted that you can't even be credited with having real opinions. Everything you believe is what someone else told you to believe. You're more a puppet than a man. And you presume to judge me?
Prove to me you're not just a robot. Break with the script for a moment. Show me that you're able to have an original thought. Something YOU came up with on your own.
You might not like what I have to say... but at least what I say came out of my own mind which is more than you can claim.
... Sigh. Size is relative to the number of actors responding is it not?
If you knock a big building down and there's only one person there to rebuild it then it will take a long time to rebuild it. If there are lots of people then the building could be rebuilt rapidly.
So yes, the reef is large but the amount of coral that will survive will also be proportionally huge. What will likely happen is a certain layer of the coral will get trashed. Certain depths are going to have more or less favorable conditions and depths outside of those ranges are going to get hit first and harder. While the coral that is relatively shielded which will be all along the reef... will be less effected or not effected at all. And the uneffected coral along with coral that survives in the damaged areas will recolonize the reef.
This is a natural part of the life cycle of coral.
Complaining about this is like complaining that a pine forest burns down. Pine cones... the seed pods dropped by pine trees, only open after a fire. The heat causes the cones to open. What is more, the forests basically encourage fire at intervals. The fires are thus part of the natural life cycle of pine forests. They grow, they kill off all other plant species under them by making the soil acidic with their needles, and then they dry out, burn, and reseed the forest with only their own species. The pine trees get a head start in populating the forest... and by the time any other species starts to invade the pine needles are already getting spread on the soil both blanketing the earth so that saplings can't get sunlight and making the soil acidic. Rinse and repeat.
This is just nature.
The point of a coral reef is not for you to take pictures of it and go "oh pretty"... its a natural dynamic system and it has dealt with far worse than anything that is happening to it today.
It is important to remember that coral is a very old species. It is older than crocodiles and other similar highly adaptive species that have survived through some very rough times.
How does coral survive these things despite dying so easily? Because it adapts rapidly. It is easily killed. But it adapts quickly as well.