DAMN, there's so much snow in Calgary...

[white men can't jump]

Then there is this piece of work put out by NIPCC:

Who is NIPCC?

I don't mean to throw shit on this, because I don't know anything really about the NIPCC, but you have to consider, if these are people trying to be unaffiliated with governments, where are they getting their funding, and how does that in turn influence their research? If the bulk of them are from private labs, corporations, etc., then you have to maintain just as much skepticism about them as you would the IPCC. And yes, it is possible that a large chunk of the 31,478 work in situations where it's in their interest to find a way to counter the argument/evidence of the IPCC.

[mcHAPPY]

I don't mean to throw shit on this, because I don't know anything really about the NIPCC, but you have to consider, if these are people trying to be unaffiliated with governments, where are they getting their funding, and how does that in turn influence their research? If the bulk of them are from private labs, corporations, etc., then you have to maintain just as much skepticism about them as you would the IPCC. And yes, it is possible that a large chunk of the 31,478 work in situations where it's in their interest to find a way to counter the argument/evidence of the IPCC.

I absolutely agree with you.

One needs to be critical and skeptical of everything one reads..... government included.

Your post would imply, through my own assumption, that government backed data is more credible than other. I cannot emphasize enough how much I disagree with that assumption.

[mcHAPPY]

I don't mean to throw shit on this, because I don't know anything really about the NIPCC, but you have to consider, if these are people trying to be unaffiliated with governments, where are they getting their funding, and how does that in turn influence their research? If the bulk of them are from private labs, corporations, etc., then you have to maintain just as much skepticism about them as you would the IPCC. And yes, it is possible that a large chunk of the 31,478 work in situations where it's in their interest to find a way to counter the argument/evidence of the IPCC.

It is also important to point out that so many promoting the idea of climate change have vested and often conflicted interests as well. This was one of the very first things I stated in this thread, if I recall correct.

[white men can't jump]

I absolutely agree with you.

One needs to be critical and skeptical of everything one reads..... government included.

Your post would imply, through my own assumption, that government backed data is more credible than other. I cannot emphasize enough how much I disagree with that assumption.

I didn't think it did, at least it wasn't meant to. It was more along the lines of maintaining skepticism, and also your next post in terms of everyone having some kind of interest in it.

It is also important to point out that so many promoting the idea of climate change have vested and often conflicted interests as well. This was one of the very first things I stated in this thread, if I recall correct.

There are agendas on all sides, and often it's a minority in the community (regardless of whether they're govt scientists, publicly funded academics, privately funded scientists, etc...) who are truly trying to present as objective a view as possible, only concerned with discovering the truth and being willing to adjust recommendations....where their funding and politics are not influencing their research (possibly heavily).

**Although I also do think that in a general sense, publicly funded science is more likely to yield results, or at least the dissemination of results that properly inform the public...However given the complexity and difficulty in evaluating climate, it is an area where it's pretty much impossible to test the truth of claims. For instance, it's not at all similar to public research checking into the effects of smoking because private companies refuse to, or refuse to reveal their findings.

[MACK11]

When is basketball gonna start again?
How is there a massive argument over climate change etc??

[NoPropsneeded]

When is basketball gonna start again?
How is there a massive argument over climate change etc??

I don't know but its pretty funny

[mcHAPPY]

I don't know but its pretty funny

I find the reaction of the extreme climate change crowd hilarious.

I'm not saying man isn't causing changes in the environment.

What I question is the extent of the changes and the consequences of these changes.

[Joey]

Matt, sorry, I edited a post of yours (#73) on the previous page when I meant to Reply with Quote ... I'm a terrible mod ... Sorry man.

This one:

You only need to look at enlightenment's and Joey's remarks earlier in the post to show the type of behaviour that has engulfed the climate change debate. enlightenment went full on bullying and discrediting. Joey acknowledged I was technically correct there is more ice but then brought up the type of ice as a rebuttal - sorry dude but there is either more ice or there is not... and there is.

I'm not sure how you can group my comments in with enlightenment. Nothing in my arguments have been "alarmist" or insulting or anything along those lines. But to your point, I tried to differentiate between Sea Ice and Continental Ice, if you choose to ignore that, that is fine. But that's on you. There IS a difference Matt.

[NoPropsneeded]

I find the reaction of the extreme climate change crowd hilarious.

I'm not saying man isn't causing changes in the environment.

What I question is the extent of the changes and the consequences of these changes.

I see where you're coming from. We're no scientists (well i'm not anyway) so i don't really think we truly know whats going on, its all speculation at this point. But i do agree that human beings are playing a part in climate change, that is without a doubt.

[mcHAPPY]

Matt, sorry, I edited a post of yours (#73) on the previous page when I meant to Reply with Quote ... I'm a terrible mod ... Sorry man.

This one:


I'm not sure how you can group my comments in with enlightenment. Nothing in my arguments have been "alarmist" or insulting or anything along those lines. But to your point, I tried to differentiate between Sea Ice and Continental Ice, if you choose to ignore that, that is fine. But that's on you. There IS a difference Matt.

Two separate issues addressed by one point which considering one is regarding character I should have addressed as separate to avoid any confusion.

Enlightenment belittled and ridiculed which is a common tact the more reading I've done this weekend. In no way shape or form did you engage in that - thank you Joey.

What you did do Was move the goal posts in the debate which is something that has been done in the pro-climate change community.

I'm not going to pretend I have the answers here, I don't. But what I do know is the climate change debate is far from settled and this 97% line is a crock of poop as many of those 97% have clearly come out and said.

[mcHAPPY]

Two separate issues addressed by one point which considering one is regarding character I should have addressed as separate to avoid any confusion.

Enlightenment belittled and ridiculed which is a common tact the more reading I've done this weekend. In no way shape or form did you engage in that - thank you Joey.

What you did do Was move the goal posts in the debate which is something that has been done in the pro-climate change community.

I'm not going to pretend I have the answers here, I don't. But what I do know is the climate change debate is far from settled and this 97% line is a crock of poop as many of those 97% have clearly come out and said.

Which only solidifies my line of thinking.

If the results of this 97% are so flawed and misleading, why hasn't any major media outlet come out with the other side of the debate?

I can think of 2 reasons:
1) Social mood is not willing to hear the other side of the study,
2) It is not in line with the interests of the powers that be.

[mcHAPPY]

I'm not sure how you can group my comments in with enlightenment. Nothing in my arguments have been "alarmist" or insulting or anything along those lines. But to your point, I tried to differentiate between Sea Ice and Continental Ice, if you choose to ignore that, that is fine. But that's on you. There IS a difference Matt.

This was probably most important and time consuming thread I put together that Joey deleted.

That is unfortunate.

Here is the link where you can see for yourself: 97% consensus is wrong:

http://www.populartechnology.net/201...tists.html?m=1

Scientists own words that their findings do not support agreement with climate change mantra.

[mcHAPPY]

I see where you're coming from. We're no scientists (well i'm not anyway) so i don't really think we truly know whats going on, its all speculation at this point. But i do agree that human beings are playing a part in climate change, that is without a doubt.

Actually there is little to prove we are experiencing climate change the UN doesn't see an increase in extreme weather, surface temps haven't increased in 17 years, etc etc

[mcHAPPY]

This was probably most important and time consuming thread I put together that Joey deleted.

That is unfortunate.

Here is the link where you can see for yourself: 97% consensus is wrong:

http://www.populartechnology.net/201...tists.html?m=1

Scientists own words that their findings do not support agreement with climate change mantra.

From above:

The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

[mcHAPPY]

Which only solidifies my line of thinking.

If the results of this 97% are so flawed and misleading, why hasn't any major media outlet come out with the other side of the debate?

I can think of 2 reasons:
1) Social mood is not willing to hear the other side of the study,
2) It is not in line with the interests of the powers that be.

Further to this, and along the same lines of the post Joey deleted by mistake, I ask this:

Isn't it strange that in a time with global terrorism on the rise (nevermind the questions of where ISIS got their original funding and resources - they were moderates of a year ago!), inequality at record levels and growing, instability around the world with civil unrest, and a killer virus set to take the world (Ebola), does anyone find it strange at the UN Obama states that none of these issues are as important as climate change?

Lets assume for just one moment that everything the alarmists are throwing out there is true and lets say everything they are saying needs to be done gets done, is it going to make a change in the next 2 years? No, it most certainly will not. I firmly believe climate change - especially considering it was a non-issue until 2 weeks ago - is political theater and intended to be a distraction just as gay marriage was used as a distraction a few years ago. I consider placing the previously mentioned issues on the back burner to draw focus to climate change the equivalent of setting up an appointment for a night time mouth guard to prevent teeth grinding while the person is choking right in front of you. There is not much sense worrying about teeth falling out in a couple of decades if you're going to be dead in 3 minutes.


As I said in deleted/erased post: I do not doubt mankind is having an impact on the environment. What I question is the extent of the impacts and the consequences.



Sorry for a load of posts here but most of the ideas were deleted.