I'd like to comment because I'm interested in the subject, thus why I asked for further information in relation to this study; no need to get offended. Unfortunately I'll need more than "Just note what he's talking about. It's quite accurate".
So you haven't READ THE SURVEY? For the third time, no, I haven't read the survey mentioned by Bojanowski where supposedly “Only 10% said climate models are ‘sufficiently accurate’ and only 15% said that ‘climatic processes are understood enough’ to allow climate to be calculated” and would like to know more about it. Do I need to say it a fourth time?  Also from your prior comment...there's something here I am actually trying to get you to comprehend so let me repeat it:
he counted those that explicitly endorsed AGW and quantified human influence, but not those that explicitly endorsed AGW that did not quantify human influence
Earlier I mentioned in passing a paleo study of whale bone distribution. This is an actual paper on historical climate change.
But there is zero meaning or importance to the researchers' making ANY COMMENT along the lines of...
explicitly endorsed AGW and quantified human influence, but not those that explicitly endorsed AGW that did not quantify human influence
That may be an objective you have. For some social or political purposes. But it has nothing to do with the conclusion/hypothesis of this or 99% of research papers and frankly, if some such comment was included it should have been cut out by the editors.
This really, really should be obvious. But apparently it isn't.
And here I mostly agree with you; insofar as the paper has no bearing on whether or not human activity is responsible for global warming, it should be irrelevant to the study. The same for say, research into metrics of climate change that doesn't discuss the causes, and so on... none of these enter into the study. That's why I previously said such a paper would be considered as taking no stance on AGW. Now, the point of Cook's study was specifically "Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature"; so, papers that offered other explanations for climate change as being dominant, minimized human contribution to climate change, denied it altogether, or endorsed it were considered. In this sense, it seems to me that the methodology of the study was appropriate and the results valid. |
|
|
|
|
I'd like to comment because I'm interested in the subject, thus why I asked for further information in relation to this study; no need to get offended. Unfortunately I'll need more than "Just note what he's talking about. It's quite accurate".
|
|
|
|
Lies, damned lies and statistics. I’m afraid that laughably hilarious statement; that ‘US Capitalism is The Most Remarkable Achievement In Human History Against Poverty’ is ridiculous, and is in no way supported by your chart. A few points a) Your chart shows that those living on a $ a day or less (at 1987 $ values) fell from 26.8% to 5.4%. In isolation though this tells us very little, and certainly does not back up the assertion that globalised free market capitalism eradicated poverty. The chart posted straight after yours actually shows that from 1987 to 2010 inflation increased by at least 1200%. This means that the income of the percentage of people no longer living on a dollar a day would have had to increased by at least 1200% in order for them to live the same quality of life they had in 1987, basically just to stand still. b) Which leads to the next point ‘capitalism lifted x amount of people out of poverty’, lifted them out of poverty and into...  ? Make no mistake, if these people now make $2 a day instead of $1 a day they are still living in conditions unbelievably worse than they would have decades ago. It would be foolish to assume that even a small minority of those no longer living on $1 are now living jolly happy lives. c) The fact of free market capitalism is that it is a system that relies on exploiting others in order to acquire and accumulate wealth. The United States has acquired and accumulated plenty of wealth over the ages, and no surprise it has achieved this like true capitalists, by exploiting others and this includes the developed world d) Finally, how much of this reduction in global poverty is even attributable to the United States? Who are the people who have been lifted from poverty and how much of a part did the US play in that? According to Professor Danny Quah from the London School of Economics, it is actually China that accounts for 100% of global poverty reduction from 1981 to 2005. This is due to the fact that in this time period, global poverty reduced by 500 million (from 1.9bn to 1.5bn) but Chinese poverty decreased by 627 million. Looking at this then you can see that if you take out China’s reduction in poverty, global poverty levels would have actually risen. I would be interested to know OPs thoughts on this. http://ablog.typepad.com/keytrendsinglobalisation/2013/11/china-world-poverty.html The usual ‘capitalism has taken more people out of poverty than in any time in our history etc etc’ line is used by my Prime Minister David Cameron, as an excuse to enact corrupt legislation designed to protect wealthy elites and maintain the status quo. It is a lie and a fallacy. The fact that some people actually believe that US style, rapacious, neo-liberal, free market capitalism will make this world a nicer fairer place, the more deluded they actually seem. And as more people like OP trumpet this nonsense without looking past the blatant lies, it grants this old, outdated and totally corrupt system more legitimacy to control and dictate our lives. I don't know about d), but I agree with the rest. I always find it amazing how many people are perfectly happy with a system based on exploiting others (and though they don't realize it, themselves as well). |
|
|
|
what year that will be real ??! not soon plus there are/will be other alternatives to concrete in future.
Not any time soon: "Partially funded by the Office of Naval Research and the National Science Foundation Countour Crafting is trying to develop 3D printed buildings using concrete." Key words 'is trying to'. Just like there are loads of people trying to find the cure for cancers most probably. Actually, I'm under the impression it's far more along than that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdbJP8Gxqog. I could be wrong, but it seems to me there are no major technological hurdles to overcome. Also, from wikipedia: Khoshnevis stated in 2010 that NASA was evaluating Contour Crafting for its application in the construction of bases on Mars and the Moon.[5] After three years, in 2013, NASA funded a small study at the University of Southern California to further develop the Contour Crafting 3D printing technique. Potential applications of this technology include constructing lunar structures of a material that could be built of 90-percent lunar material with only ten percent of the material transported from Earth. Not any time soon: "Partially funded by the Office of Naval Research and the National Science Foundation Countour Crafting is trying to develop 3D printed buildings using concrete."
Key words 'is trying to'. Just like there are loads of people trying to find the cure for cancers most probably.
YES, and why would they spend taxpayer money while the current market technologies are more than efficient i mean why change the game towards 3D printing with all progress in hand, the operation is fairly enough automated and with the 3D printing is the aim to a full automation? new ideas and innovation. Current building technologies are very inefficient, produce a lot of waste and require a large workforce, by comparison to this method. |
|
|
|
Last month payment was beautiful, Frankly speaking my Bitcoin wallet saw first coin. I was and am so happy with this signature advertise and its payment, I am waiting for my activity to be 56 so i could sign up according to the updated rules.
Well, in the meantime you can also take a look at wetsuit's site, http://freebitco.in, for more btc. And here's the thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320959.0 |
|
|
|
In reading your post and reviewing my assertion, I think my comment was on very solid ground [...]
[...]
saying that the arthor did or did not reject climate change being caused by man and trying to draw conclusions from that is ridiculous [...]
I see you didn't understand how these studies were conducted. Such a paper would be considered not to take a position on AGW, unless explicitly or implicitly supporting it; for example, by depending on AGW for what is being proposed. And this isn't gathered by just looking at the titles and abstracts, but also stated directly by the authors of the papers themselves; they know whether or not AGW is required for the paper to be relevant. You make two other comments, bolded above, which are also completely inappropriate in the world of scientific inquiry. Argument ad popularum.
You should brush up on your logical fallacies; that isn't argumentum ad populum, it's called scientific consensus. Here is a quick overview of some of the differences, as seen in http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum#Scientific_Consensus: Scientific consensus is built upon a foundation of logic and systematic evidence - the scientific method - rather than dogma (or that which is taught in Sunday school) or popular prejudice. The consensus comes not from blindly agreeing with those in authority, but from having their claims to be thoroughly reviewed and criticised by their peers. (Note that even long-established scientific consensus can be overthrown by better logic and better evidence typically preceded by anomalous research findings.) So the statement still stands: There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one. Now I am through with your argument. Let us take a brief look at Cook's. A quick google search shows that others have discredited his method and his conclusions.
Shollenberger goes on:
If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper: Reject AGW 0.7% (78)
[...]
I fail to see how Shollenberger discredited the study, considering he completely ignored the other categories which explicitly or implicitly endorse AGW. So for example, he counted those that explicitly endorsed AGW and quantified human influence, but not those that explicitly endorsed AGW that did not quantify human influence; which is sloppy work at best. Further, he also conveniently ignored the second part of the study that had the authors of the papers themselves rate their own papers, based on the same categories, and which lead to the same results: that is, over 97% of the papers endorsed AGW. Now let's move to something that's not a strawman. Climate models. Most of the climate alarmism is rooted in forcasts from these models.
Moreover, as Bojanowski notes, scientific skepticism is even far more widespread when it comes to the reliability of the computer models that are being used to predict climate change. “Only 10% said climate models are ‘sufficiently accurate’ and only 15% said that ‘climatic processes are understood enough’ to allow climate to be calculated,” Bojanowski reported.
It's hard for me to comment on the study he's referring to as I found almost nothing about it, but feel free to share more details if you have them. That said, the models are constantly being updated to include new processes and rely on less approximations, but that is not to say they can't accurately predict long-term trends; they have been able to do so reasonably well for a long time (see the models proposed by James Hansen). In fact, current models are increasingly able to accurately predict not only long-term trends but also more short-term variations. More information about current models: http://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm |
|
|
|
[...]
These guys did over-react, yes, but probably because it was their first time experiencing google glass.
Wait a sec... please clarify this for me... Are you saying that never having seen Google Glasses before, they decided to play it safe and assume he was a terrorist? EDIT: Simplified post. |
|
|
|
I have added your ad to my signature and have 84 posts right now. Thanks!
And also where's the signature? I don't see it right now... Really? I see it doubled, side by side, on the second line of the sig...  but yes, it should be in the first line of the sig. |
|
|
|
This is absolutely nuts. Who in their right mind would think this is even semi-okay?
To be fair, it clearly states that recording devices are not allowed in theatres. Google glass is a recording device. That's kind of meaningless nowadays though; the most basic cellphones are recording devices for example. And that is to say nothing of the completely out of proportion response to the incident. |
|
|
|
http://torrentfreak.com/fbi-drags-google-glass-man-from-theater-on-piracy-fears-140121/A small quote from the article: “They wanted to know who I am, where I live, where I work, how much I’m making, how many computers I have at home, why am I recording the movie, who am I going to give the recording to, why don’t I just give up the guy up the chain, ’cause they are not interested in me. Over and over and over again.”
And then yet more paranoia. Even though the Google Glass was switched off the man wasn’t allowed to touch the device out of fear he would “erase the evidence.” The FBI also asked some pretty strange questions.
“Then they wanted to know what does Google ask of me in exchange for Glass, how much is Google paying me, who is my boss and why am I recording the movie,” he explained.
I laughed a couple of times reading that article... so this is what the FBI is for.
|
|
|
|
I have added your ad to my signature and have 84 posts right now. Thanks!
You need to add your bitcoin address as well... though you'd better create a new post, since you can't edit that one now...  |
|
|
|
No, sorry, it would be a fallacy only if the articles were at most tangentially related to climate change, which is not the case, or if anthropogenic climate change wasn't already the consensus view among scientists, which it is. This was part of a study which looked at about 16,000 peer reviewed articles that explicitly deal with climate change, and found that less than 30 either deny human activity is the cause for climate change or offer other explanations for the observations. Further, those 30 were barely cited by other articles, which leads to the next point: there no longer is a debate among scientists about whether or not anthropogenic climate change is happening; it is taken for granted and the majority of the remaining articles either explicitly or implicitly endorse the consensus opinion. To further prove this point, a similar study went one step further and asked the authors of the papers themselves to rate the paper's position on anthropogenic climate change. About 65% stated the paper took a position on this issue, with over 97% endorsing the consensus view. I should probably also point this out: There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.
For anyone interested in reading more about the studies I mentioned, look up James Lawrence Powell, and James Cook. Also, http://www.skepticalscience.com is a pretty decent site, with a lot of information about climate science myths, such as those often used here. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but this isn't Soviet Russia and Lysenko had a lot more scientists disagreeing with him, despite the state propaganda machine.
Out of about 16,000 peer reviewed articles relating to climate change, dating from 1991 to 2013, less than 30 reject human activity as the cause for global climate change. And as far as coverage of this issue goes, at least in American mainstream media like ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, they spent a grand total of about 2 hours reporting it last year; that is, 2 hours in a whole year... and the coverage is pretty bad to begin with.
|
|
|
|
That's cool but aren't those guys over the 50+ activity category or I can't see numbers right?
No, they're both below 50 activity: adam9317 is a Jr. Member with 42 Activity and 99 Posts; JarvisTechnology is also a Jr. Member with 42 Activity and 125 Posts. EDIT: Sorry about that I thought it meant a post count of 50.
How do I increase the activity level other than posting or being online?
I think it increases automatically with time, but I'm not sure.  |
|
|
|
Starting post 142.
1EMPiRXFScBYRydmjtYeaPSJ3sZ51UK8eM
As hilariousandco said to adam9317 just 3 posts back, you need 50 activity to start this month. |
|
|
|
So, the majority of you believe that 250 years of industrial revolution, human activity and de-forestation have no impact on climate?
Well, at least a vocal minority do seem to believe so... or that it's just another government conspiracy to tax you to death. |
|
|
|
Stunna is saying I have 0 good posts I didn't see all your posts, but you do have a lot of one liners... not that they can't necessarily add to the discussion, but that doesn't help. That said, you and Stunna exchanging negative trust over this seems silly (not to mention an abuse of the system). |
|
|
|
Oh that's crazy! Where you cheating or spamming the forum to get banned?
Nope, I did all by the book. Maybe couple nonconstructive posts but blaming me abusing his campaign, halving my payment and banning me for that seems kinda too much. There must've been more to it than that to ban you. Did you edit your starting post? No I didn't. Well, Stunna did say he was going to be more strict about it, last time he changed the payment rules. And considering there are about 100 people in this program already, it's not really surprising he would want to limit the number... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
