Mass tree deaths in the Amazon

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

The internet is not real life to me lol sorry. I don't have a problem growing my own food. I'd drive a prius, as a second car. The problem I DO have, is being forced to drive these types of cars. People being given MY money in tax rebates for buying those cars. Being looked down upon by those who do drive them, and having those smug people tell me I'm horrible for driving my car. Oh and, Prius' ain't so great either. Having to be shipped all over the world. Nickle mining, which is the worse mining there is, and it destroys the planet, where you can't use the land for anything, for a very long time. Plus, having to ship those same parts back and forth from all over the world so that it can be built in one place. You want to be good to the planet? Buy yourself and older model diesel car. Great mileage, can use cooking oil, and anything that comes out of the tailpipe lands on the ground instead of going in the air. Plus, you don't have the issue of having to dump those batteries out and then having to install them again, AND these cars last for decades, while a Prius will not. The more wires and tech involved, the less they last. As a car guy, you can take my word on that. Go fig.

You're right about the old diesel cars being better...much of the Prius hype is greenwashing. It's almost always environmentally better to buy something used than new, better for your wallet too lol. Bio diesel from used cooking oil is usually a lot easier to get a hold of than ethically produce ethanol. In theory ethanol works, but when it's produced from corn it's a byproduct of oil, not a substitute, because that style of agriculture is 100% dependent on oil for fertilizer and processing.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

The articles are referenced, if you'd like to trace the sources and check the scientific veracity. Or, you could check out the summarized arguments and see if there's a logical problem with them.

The site choice was out of convenience, and since the content is what's up for discussion and not my debate skill or amount of facts I can list, it's also irrelevant.

Apparently it has convinced 97% of the scientific community, but I couldn't give you a figure for "the world". Most of the people I meet aren't convinced, but that doesn't tell us anything since most of the people I meet aren't convinced of evolution either.

The Original poll that was taken to derive this mythical 97% number was to be pooled from 10,257 earth scientists. When the pollsters could not get the outcome they desired they trimmed out all the dissenting voices from their original pool, when that didn't work they shortened and simplified the questions. It then went down to 1,372 scientists. What happened to the original 10,000? They did not pose questions directly to the scientists. Instead, they surveyed public statements the scientists had signed indicating whether they accept that the planet is warming and that humans are the primary cause. When that still did not work they decided to use a sub pool within the group which consisted of only 77 people 75 of which agreed with them. There is your magical 97%

So out of 10,257 earth scientists 75 gave them the answer they wanted. By the way, these are only climatologists, that they pooled, so to say 97% of the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY is completely deceiving.

But, as I already mentioned. consensus in the scientific community does not mean anything. As we've seen time and time again in the past.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

You're right about the old diesel cars being better...much of the Prius hype is greenwashing. It's almost always environmentally better to buy something used than new, better for your wallet too lol. Bio diesel from used cooking oil is usually a lot easier to get a hold of than ethically produce ethanol. In theory ethanol works, but when it's produced from corn it's a byproduct of oil, not a substitute, because that style of agriculture is 100% dependent on oil for fertilizer and processing.

oh man, the farce of corn ethanol... Don't get me started on that one lol. Maybe from sugar cane, I'd agree with, but corn, the way we do it today? And all the money they get from the government? bleh. It's things like this, that involve billions of tax dollars going to these types of projects, and rebates, that I don't agree with. Cooking oil is great, but now that people got wise to it, they are charging people for it, and there isn't enough to go around anymore. I'd love a car that smells like fries : D

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

The Original poll that was taken to derive this mythical 97% number was to be pooled from 10,257 earth scientists. When the pollsters could not get the outcome they desired they trimmed out all the dissenting voices from their original pool, when that didn't work they shortened and simplified the questions. It then went down to 1,372 scientists. What happened to the original 10,000? They did not pose questions directly to the scientists. Instead, they surveyed public statements the scientists had signed indicating whether they accept that the planet is warming and that humans are the primary cause. When that still did not work they decided to use a sub pool within the group which consisted of only 77 people 75 of which agreed with them. There is your magical 97%

So out of 10,257 earth scientists 75 gave them the answer they wanted. By the way, these are only climatologists, that they pooled, so to say 97% of the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY is completely deceiving.

Do you have a source?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Do you have a source?

Which parts? That it's only 97% of climatologists that participated? That it's not 97% of the scientific community, and only climatologists? Which parts in specific do you want a source about lol so I don't spend too much time looking stuff up. And if you look it up, the numbers jump ALL over the place of how many scientists there are. Just google, and you'll see exactly how the poll went down. The authors hand picked the 1,372 scientists in their review, a small portion of the 10s of thousands of scientists who have weighed in on the subject, and made up their own criteria for determining agreement with the IPCC and for determining who's credible and who's not.



Even with all that, 97% of scientists in the field agreed T-Rex was a super carnivore as recent as 10 years ago... and 97% of astrophysicists agreed in a static model universe as well in the fairly recent past... Both were wrong.

They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.

[secrets0stolen]

I read the article you posted earlier rr, the author's criticism of the site's graphics, and play on words doesn't seem very relevant, but other than that:

The Scientific Method

Science is NOT a collection of data. Science is a PROCESS. (That’s why when 31,000 scientists criticize the process, it is apropos and significant.) When an answer (e.g., AGW) is proposed to a technical problem it is entirely up to the proponents to subject it to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

This has NOT been done — and is by FAR the number one deficiency of the AGW hypothesis.

AGW promoters are well aware of this key shortcoming. Their solution is to devalue the merits of the Scientific Method. Of course, they usually aren’t foolish enough to come out and say that specifically, but that is the effect of their actions.

So how are AGW proponents attempting to undermine real science? It’s in their assertions that “consensus” trumps the Scientific Method; that computer models are superior to empirical evidence; that we don’t have the time to get down and dirty so the precautionary principle justifies specious extrapolation; that “Post Normal Science” is a better way of resolving complex technical issues, etc., etc.

This bears a striking resemblance to arguments I've heard against abiogenesis and evolution! We can't create experiments to test it the way we can with other subjects, therefore it isn't science.

Science is defined by the process of the scientific method, which is a based on it's ability to make predictions. Since we can't recreate the entire earth in a lab, we do concept tests--and the greenhouse effect is a proven concept. Those concepts can then be applied to the real world through calculations, and the models tested by the accuracy of predictions. In that way, climate change has even more going for it than abiogenesis.