AGW Theory - Discussion

obama-backed-green-energy-failures.

according to the washington times you moved the decimal point over one and it's 2.2 billion

I would still like to get a hold of some....

I'm trying to get my hands on the data. It does not appear that John Cook released the full data of the study.

However, the Forbes article makes 2 VERY good arguments.
1) the 97% is used incorrectly in political and social discourse. False Equivocation Fallacy
2) the Data was deliberately misrepresented.

You did not read the whole article.
It clearly states that John Cook included 2 categories as supporting the AGW theory which very plainly do not.

The article certainly provides enough reasonable doubt that no one should reference the "97%" without a formal rebuttal addressing each point in the article.

There re also links to refutations by several scientists whose papers were misrepresented. Many of whom are actually arguing AGAINST the global warming model.

Epstein is actually generous with the 50% mark. The actual model was that 90% of global warming is caused by man. However if you follow some of the reference links to the refuting scientists argument, the scientist's paper is saying that 70% of global warming is attributed to the Sun, ie NOT MAN.

can he make it uninhabitable for other people's children?

Mine are all grown up... but there was this one kid in the store this weekend throwing a temper tantrum.....

It's been discussed before and I've read it multiple times. He's counting the number of abstracts where there is an ex/implicit endorsement of AGW.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf (I don't know if it's accessible or not)

What conveniently gets ignored in the second portion of the study where the authors of the same papers were asked to evaluate their own stances. The result there backed up the 97% statistic.

Which paper is attributing warming to the sun? Should be a fun read when I get back.

It should be accessible- I'm not presently logged into a university network and am able to see the full pdf.

Dr. Scafetta, 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html




Also, John Cook's study can be seen here:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=134F25AC6EE433A3637CEC92EEE9D394.c1


data file is also there. data file does not include the abstracts.
big chunk of work to redo this study though.

The abstract in question:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025539/abstract
Where exactly is the conflict? Where are you getting the 70% number?

Fixed.

Ideally....we would create a machine that removes CO2 that is driven by a coal fired power plant so that we would never be out of work...

/rubs hands together evily

We could make it powered by a pedal bike and end childhood obesity. It's not like they're learning anything in school, right, put em to work!

I considered giant hamster wheels harvesting the power of the unemployed... but unfortunately some of them are actually infirmed... and all of them want to make more money than they get for doing nothing....

Time to deploy your mind control laser.

Thanks Obama!

wrong thread but

the real problem with immigration isn't that they are overstaying their welcome...we are simultaneously exploiting them for slave wages and taking minimum wage jobs away from the urban and rural poor...all because we don't like paying for milk and eggs....or as kelly osbourne so eloquently put it, cleaning our own toilets...

I don't know when we all became the howells from gilligan's island ...but I suspect it was somewhere around 1865

They don't pay income taxes on those slave wages, and they ship most of them outside the country.

exactly and they should. remember zoe baird and kimba wood..

"nannygate" aka we can't seem to find a liberal woman that doesn't have a closet full of illegal peruvian maids

Top scientist claims Obama admin is on the wrong side of climate change.

We should listen to him not only because he's right, but Keplar seems to have found his predicted astro-megastructure 1500 light years away as well!

Let's see what evidence Mr. Dyson offers in the article.

Oh, just this. k

Study here

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s imminent Fifth Assessment Report, who found the errors in Cook’s data, said: “It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that. No doubt many scientists consider it possible, as we do, that Man caused some warming, but not most warming.

I read it. Basically they projected their own criteria onto the Cook paper, effectively tossing aside the stated methodology. They defined a "standard definition":
which they later clarify to mean an explicitly stated and quantified position.

Explicitly stated AND quantified are extremely narrow criteria when combined like that. Most authors won't bother making such a statement because of the extreme space limitations placed on an article's abstract. Using the example provided in Cook:
That's 20 words of information that can be placed in the introduction or stated with more brevity by implicitly stating similar information. Abstract lengths are determined by individual publishers and it becomes almost an art to cram as much useful information into that section as possible. (The abstract in the article you linked is only 190 words.)

So, yeah, if you toss out the methodology of the original paper and substitute in an artificially stringent one, you get dramatically different results.

Also, an IPCC "expert reviewer" is a *** title. It just means they registered on their website to receive a draft copy of the report and promised not to disclose any information before its official release. Literally anyone could register for this. Expert reviewers are not asked to review material.

Oh it's entirely within the realm of possibility as are many other things including a great and powerful universal creator. But mere possibility nor even minor probability is sufficient to enact major changes that effectively turn the progressives into unilateral super powers. But hey don't let something so minor as logic and reason get in the way of a good hype fueled power grab. But lets be honest Cook knew exactly what he was doing, creating ammo for the progressives to *** everyone with.



That's not the issue with illegals.

The primary issue is that illegals are poor. Introducing new poor people into a socialist economy drags that economy down as everyone not poor is forced to lower their standard of living in order to offset the new costs of the expanded pool of poor people. This also results in an increase of crime.

This is not a race issue, poor people, of any nationality / race, cause crime which acts as a detriment to the economy. Legalizing the primary cause of this crime, the manufacture, distribution, selling and distribution rights of cannabis, will go a long way to offsetting the effect if it's implemented in enough states to effectively break the criminal monopoly.

Illegals who happen to be rich just raise the economy, though if they have money they tend to be able to afford legal visa's. Europeans, for all their *** and feigned indignation, know this very well and it's why they are losing their ***about the massive influx of poor displaced refugees. The very same people who give America ***for treating illegals so badly are suddenly having to justify their own actions.

Which just goes to show how terrible the ideas of progressives are. They need to lie about their intentions and import an underclass to retain their power.

A good study is the Northern European socialist countries, the same ones the progressives like to hold aloft as an "idealized society". When studied you notice that there isn't that many poor people, nor that many super wealthy people. Their countries were never destroyed during WWII and they never had a sudden huge wave of poor migrants settling down permanently. Culturally they aren't even diverse. The long time stable environment allowed the indigenous population to homogenize, industrialize and evolve socially without many disruptive events. You get this uniform environment where the default position is that people are already economically equal before socialism.

Progressives, like usually, confuse the cause and effect. They believe that the equality is a result of socialism but in truth socialism is only possible in that kind of homogenic, stable, uniform environment. The socialists certainty have the power to brutalize the population but there is no incentive to use it.

Take a country like North Korea, which has a similar construction (homogenic population, no great difference in economic equality) but wasn't stable and just got out of the crippling brutality of the Japanese occupation. They implemented socialist economic policies to the letter, full on communism. But since their population was already impoverished, there was an incentive for those in power to abuse that power to acquire personal wealth in the form of resources and connections. Furthermore because of the instability, there was an incentive for those in power to secure their positions via brutal repression.

We can see that socialism only works in a safe, secure, both economically and culturally homogenized and resource rich environment. Basically perfect conditions that most of the world will never know. The moment you start knocking some of those pillars out, humans revert to their natural state of "me and mine first" which cause's economic stratification which leads to repression and corruption.

Illegal immigrants get limited benefits, if any at all.

Introducing new adults, poor or not, is generally beneficial for a country, and *particularly* for socialist economies, if the immigrants can/are allowed to maintain jobs and pay taxes.They gain the benefits of not having to subsidize any education or care for the first XX number of years, essentially having no societal debts to cancel out before making a positive financial contribution.
There is a tradeoff in age, as there is obviously a sweet spot between when someone is eligible to enter the work force, and when someone goes on pension.

There is also significant difference between illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, and refugees/asylum seekers.

Compared to what/who?
This seems to leave out huge periods of emigration from the area, where significant portions of the population up and left.
On what timeframe? And the Nordic countries are far from having an uneventful, turmoil and conflict-free history.
Also, regarding economic equality:
http://web.econ.ku.dk/eprn_epru/Workings_Papers/WP-13-01.pdf

That's not how that works.

Poor people, of any ethnicity, introduced into a new economy will damage that economy. The key is the definition of "poor", which in this situation is anyone significantly under the regions average wealth. Introduction of a small number works fine as they are integrated before they substantially impact the economy. Introduction of a large number on the other hand causes the exact opposite, they create their own culture and become a drag on the economy.

And yes the Scandinavian countries got over big time vs the rest of Europe during WWII, there isn't any comparison here. They were largely ignored as both sides had bigger issues to deal with. That combined with their relatively flat wealth distribution enabled them to thrive on an economic model that has proven disastrous to everyone else who's tried implementing it.

I explained the reasons above, though reading what you posted I doubt it did any good.

Seriously, open a history book.

Norway was bombed and occupied during WWII, Finland fought 3 wars, Denmark was bombed and occupied during WWII, Sweden was neutral but accepted thousands of refugees and lost trade, even Iceland was invaded.

Bunkers still exist in Denmark and parts of beaches are still closed because of landmines.

Did as many people die per capitia as other parts of Europe? No. Was Scandinavia largely ignored? Hell no.




As to your economic assertions they are just as accurate as your historical analysis.

then how do you explain the US? the vast majority of our ancestors that immigrated here didn't have two nickels to rub together.

But most do not get their history from books. They get their history from movies and TV.

Scandinavia has been totally ignored by WWII movies.

It's a pity they never made "number the stars" a reality talent contest show. Everyone would know about it.