RunRyder RC
 10  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 9 pages [ <<    <     4      5     ( 6 )     7      8     NEXT    >> ] 4386 views POST REPLY
Scorpion Power Scorpion Power
HelicopterOff Topics › Brains of liberals, conservatives may work differently
09-14-2007 09:35 PM  10 years agoPost 101
Pistol Pete

rrProfessor

Seffner, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

louis...Where's the insult?
havoc...this bozo

carefull what you ask for.

~~Enjoying the hobby one flight at a time~~

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  BLOGAttn:RR
09-14-2007 09:41 PM  10 years agoPost 102
spork

rrVeteran

Mountain View, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Do you know where the idea of this "consensus" came from?
Yes.

It's not a single quote that's attributable to any one source. I'm comfortable that there is a consensus based on the IPCC reports and based on the fact that it's nearly impossible to find an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal that questions the scientific fact of global warming (in fact I don't think I've ever seen such an article). On the other hand, there are literally thousands of peer reviewed articles that quantify the climate change, its causes, and effects.

On a completely unrelated topic, can anyone really not see how calling news "fake" is insulting (even if true)? Aside from the Daily Show and Weekend Update, I think news programs like to believe they're not fake.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
09-14-2007 09:58 PM  10 years agoPost 103
Havoc

rrElite Veteran

Ky.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

It's not a single quote that's attributable to any one source.
Wrong. Its from a Science Magazine article in an essay by Naomi Oreskes, a University of California professor. But you knew that right? It was the conclusion of a key word search of "climate change".
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.a...T20041207a.html

How much play in the Media did Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte get when his study found less than 50%?
I'm comfortable that there is a consensus based on the IPCC reports and based on the fact that it's nearly impossible to find an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal that questions the scientific fact of global warming (in fact I don't think I've ever seen such an article). On the other hand, there are literally thousands of peer reviewed articles that quantify the climate change, its causes, and effects.
While several thousand scientists were consulted in the IPCC report, that doesn't mean they agreed with its conclusions. The final report was generated by bureaucrats.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
09-14-2007 11:15 PM  10 years agoPost 104
spork

rrVeteran

Mountain View, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Wrong. Its from a Science Magazine article in an essay by Naomi Oreskes...
I can tell you for a fact that the idea of a scientific consensus does not stem from one and only one reference. Whether there is in fact a scientific consensus has been debated ad nauseum (despite the fact that it's hardly debatable) for a long while now.
It was the conclusion of a key word search of "climate change".
Yes, and a thousand other things.
How much play in the Media did Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte get when his study found less than 50%?
Sadly, too much, cosidering that his "findings" are utter nonsense. This is much like the studies that tell us that scientists don't agree on evolution. It kind of depends on your definition of scientitst.

But let's not argue about where these ideas come from. Instead why don't you find me a few articles in peer reviewed scientific journals that question global warming?

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
09-14-2007 11:28 PM  10 years agoPost 105
spog

rrVeteran

Ontario, Canada

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I like the yoga video, it makes up for reading the rest of this thread.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
09-14-2007 11:54 PM  10 years agoPost 106
Havoc

rrElite Veteran

Ky.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I can tell you for a fact that the idea of a scientific consensus does not stem from one and only one reference. Whether there is in fact a scientific consensus has been debated ad nauseum (despite the fact that it's hardly debatable) for a long while now.
Says you. It stems from her work.
Sadly, too much, cosidering that his "findings" are utter nonsense. This is much like the studies that tell us that scientists don't agree on evolution. It kind of depends on your definition of scientitst.
I guess its an Inconvenient truth
But let's not argue about where these ideas come from. Instead why don't you find me a few articles in peer reviewed scientific journals that question global warming?
Can you guys not use google? This only took five seconds. Oh, I see, you need to be able to question your opinion to get the search terms.

“Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.

I suppose you'll counter with Mann's debunked hockey stick graph.

So lets hear how he must be tied to the oil industry and he kills babies and blah blah blah liberal venom. I'm going to go fly now.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
09-15-2007 12:19 AM  10 years agoPost 107
helo_chris

rrVeteran

goodlettsville, tn

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I can tell you for a fact that the idea of a scientific consensus does not stem from one and only one reference. Whether there is in fact a scientific consensus has been debated ad nauseum (despite the fact that it's hardly debatable) for a long while now.

Quote
It was the conclusion of a key word search of "climate change".

Yes, and a thousand other things.

Quote
How much play in the Media did Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte get when his study found less than 50%?

Sadly, too much, cosidering that his "findings" are utter nonsense. This is much like the studies that tell us that scientists don't agree on evolution. It kind of depends on your definition of scientitst.
You really should get out more and quit listening to the media and Al Gore. As Havoc pointed out this "concensus" was in fact based on the study done by Naomi Oreskes. And Dr Schultes work was based on the exact same criteria she used for her original result.

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Les...article8641.htm

Also as was pointed out many scientists contributed to the IPCC work but only a very select few were responsible for the final paper which was edited for content by politicians. And if you look at the data they used the numbers dont even correspond to numbers published by James Hanson.

"There is a fine line between cutting edge and bleeding edge.."

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
09-15-2007 12:27 AM  10 years agoPost 108
helo_chris

rrVeteran

goodlettsville, tn

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Instead why don't you find me a few articles in peer reviewed scientific journals that question global warming?
How about more than 500 of them.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/...se,176495.shtml

"There is a fine line between cutting edge and bleeding edge.."

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
09-15-2007 12:34 AM  10 years agoPost 109
spork

rrVeteran

Mountain View, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

How about more than 500 of them.
Actually, that's ZERO of them. You posted a link to an article that makes a claim. NOT a link to a peer reviewed article (or 500 of them). So, the challenge should be easy - since you feel you know of 500 of them. Point me to just a few.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
09-15-2007 01:25 AM  10 years agoPost 110
helo_chris

rrVeteran

goodlettsville, tn

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

OK, so then there is no concensus on global warming unless you can point to a majority of articles in peer reviewed journals supporting it. So lets see it.

"There is a fine line between cutting edge and bleeding edge.."

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
09-15-2007 01:29 AM  10 years agoPost 111
kiwidave1

rrVeteran

Seattle, WA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Global warming IS a FACT.

What is causing the warming is in dispute (sort of).

David

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
09-15-2007 01:52 AM  10 years agoPost 112
helo_chris

rrVeteran

goodlettsville, tn

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Global warming IS a FACT.
Accurate enough statement, it happends every day when the sun comes up.

And you are correct in your statement that no one is disputing the actual warming that has happened over 120 years. Only the cause and the actual severity or repercussions. The majority of which happened before 1940, so how are SUVs to blame for that?

"There is a fine line between cutting edge and bleeding edge.."

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
09-15-2007 02:06 AM  10 years agoPost 113
spork

rrVeteran

Mountain View, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Sorry guys, I just can't debate the conspiracy theories any longer. I'll have to accept that global warming is all B.S., man never walked on the moon, the government has a warehouse full of carbeurators that will give you 200 miles/gallon, our leaders are in contact and working with space aliens, and perpetual motion machines exist but are being kept from us (although admittedly I don't know the motivations for any of these things).

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
09-15-2007 02:15 AM  10 years agoPost 114
RCHelicopterGuy

rrVeteran

Michigan

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

And don't forget, George W. Bush is responsible for 9/11, and did it just so he'd have an excuse to go to war and get all of Iraq's oil for himself.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
09-15-2007 03:02 AM  10 years agoPost 115
spork

rrVeteran

Mountain View, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Almost forgot...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_theory

The Chemtrail conspiracy theory claims that some trails left behind jet aircraft are different in appearance and quality from those of normal contrails, may be composed of harmful chemicals, and that these different contrails are being deliberately produced, and covered up by the government.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
09-15-2007 03:47 AM  10 years agoPost 116
RonHill

rrVeteran

FLL, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

LouInSD
Message to the "good Germans"
Can you discuss an issue like an adult without trying to insult anyone that does not agree with you?
So let me get this straight...Al Gore flies in a jet, soooo all debate should stop on global warming. No need to prove outlandish claims that the entire scientific community of the world is "conspiring" to pull a hoax on the people of the world, and they named this hoax "global warming"
No, it means I am not going to listen to Gore when he talks about it. Anymore than I am going to listen to Jim Baker preach against rape, or Clinton talk about being loyal in a marriage.
This is a perfect example of cons behaving like four year olds...only a four year old would understand this logic...I certainly don't...

BTW, "FAUX" means fake in French..

Fox creates fake news, therefore the name "FAUX"

Get it?

Where's the insult?
I know what Faux means. Children make up names for things they don't understand or don't like.

You blindly accept something as true, even without evidence.
For example "Fox creates fake news, therefore the name 'FAUX'."

Where is your evidence that Fox 'creates' fake news, or that it spins news any more than CBS or CNN?

Go ahead, bring some evidence to the party and not just childish name games.

Most agree that Fox has a right lean, I would not debate that. Just as CNN and CBS have a left lean. Murdoch created Fox to provide a right leaning view...Thus, you have balance that did not exist before with CNN.

So bring some EVIDENCE, not just name calling to the party.

We can start with a cite to your 72% claim. Lets try to debate topics not people, and try to not make blanket insults or name calling. Care to try?
BTW, 72% of Faux News watchers believe we have found WMD in Iraq...
How about this:
For example, in polls taken just before the invasion, an average of 46 percent of Democrats supported going to war; only 21 percent of CCES Democrats remember having done so; just before the war, 72 percent of Democrats said they thought Iraq possessed WMD,

http://web.mit.edu/polisci/portl/cc...2007%20text.pdf

This paper shows that Repubs thought Saddam had WMD's at 88%, Independents: 78, Dems: 72

AFTER the invasion the stories changed. 63, 30, 11.

Hindsight is great isn't it? You are never wrong if you change your mind later.

BTW notice I included the cite so you can see for yourself.

Also that cite shows 36% of Fox views think WMD's have been found....They are stupid and that is scary, but no where near your 72% claim.

Oh, and I watch/read CNN and listen to NPR. I admit Fox has a bias, but you seem to ignore that anyone else does also.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
09-15-2007 03:51 AM  10 years agoPost 117
helo_chris

rrVeteran

goodlettsville, tn

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Dont bother, the only thing he knows he learned in poli-sci 101. Which is apparently not connected to the debate team.

"There is a fine line between cutting edge and bleeding edge.."

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
09-15-2007 03:53 AM  10 years agoPost 118
LouInSD

rrVeteran

San Diego CA USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Hey Faux watchers, let me know if you need some help reading this...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...l/306/5702/1686

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
09-15-2007 03:55 AM  10 years agoPost 119
spork

rrVeteran

Mountain View, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I feel silly now; I almost forgot about the fact that TWA flight 800 was brought down by a missile, and our government is trying to cover it up.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
09-15-2007 04:11 AM  10 years agoPost 120
LouInSD

rrVeteran

San Diego CA USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I need to make a public apology...I was wrong...

According to the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, 80% of Fox viewers believed at least one of these three lies that Fox was pushing...

1) the U.S. had discovered the alleged stockpiles of WMD in Iraq since the war began

2) the U.S. had “clear evidence” that Saddam Hussein was “working closely with al Queda

3) there was international support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq

So I misremembered (like the Bushism?) the results of the study...

My bad! LOL

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/714.html
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/p...nt=102&lb=brusc

And of course, people who read newspapers were better informed than those who watched TV networks, (Fox viewers were the least informed) and those who listened to NPR were the best informed Americans...

what a surprise...

If you ever want to know which outlets are telling the truth, just find out which ones the Cons HATE the most...

If it's true, it's GOTTA be a "librul" media source!

LOL

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
WATCH
 9 pages [ <<    <     4      5     ( 6 )     7      8     NEXT    >> ] 4386 views POST REPLY
Scorpion Power Scorpion Power
HelicopterOff Topics › Brains of liberals, conservatives may work differently
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 10  Topic Subscribe

Friday, September 22 - 11:20 pm - Copyright © 2000-2017 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online