BackPage 1 of 2Next
FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
'Chasing Ice' changes a life

'Chasing Ice' changes a life

(1:43) Climate change denier who watches Bill O'Reilly daily, changed her mind after seeing 'Chasing Ice', a film by a National Geographic photographer who set out to document climate change. Next video is the trailer for 'Chasing Ice'.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1818 days ago)
Did she really tell people if they want to stay in her house to step out? What a moron. Doesn't she realize you cannot stay inside the house and step out at the same time?
ReplyVote up (296)down (278)
Original comment
Did she really tell people if they want to stay in her house to step out? What a moron. Doesn't she realize you cannot stay inside the house and step out at the same time?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Robertfm (1740 days ago)
Climate change has happened since the planet has been here. What is in dispute is that man can stop whatever is going to happen. Scientifically it is accepted that mans contribution at most is 5% of all cabon emissions, so the earth is contributing 95%. So please tell me even if we could suddenly stop our emissions this would save the planet, assuming of course the planet is at risk.
ReplyVote up (245)down (248)
Original comment
Climate change has happened since the planet has been here. What is in dispute is that man can stop whatever is going to happen. Scientifically it is accepted that mans contribution at most is 5% of all cabon emissions, so the earth is contributing 95%. So please tell me even if we could suddenly stop our emissions this would save the planet, assuming of course the planet is at risk.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1740 days ago)
Well said.
ReplyVote up (250)down (239)
Original comment
Well said.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1739 days ago)
I have explained this before. It's not about proportion, it's about balance. Think of it as a seesaw. We are adding a tiny amount of CO2 to one side by burning fossil fuels, and removing a tiny amount from other side by cutting down trees that absorb CO2. Without humans, the sides are pretty much balanced, but they do wobble, hence climate change throughout history. We are upsetting that balance. Space is very cold. Greenhouse gases trap heat like a blanket, so we definitely need some greenhouse gases. But as we add more CO2, we are slowly making the blanket thicker. Unfortunately, it seems that a rise of only a few degrees C will result in catastrophic consequences - as we are starting to experience today. It will only get worse unless we can reverse that balance. Hope that helps you understand why man's tiny contribution is a real problem.
ReplyVote up (218)down (248)
Original comment
I have explained this before. It's not about proportion, it's about balance. Think of it as a seesaw. We are adding a tiny amount of CO2 to one side by burning fossil fuels, and removing a tiny amount from other side by cutting down trees that absorb CO2. Without humans, the sides are pretty much balanced, but they do wobble, hence climate change throughout history. We are upsetting that balance. Space is very cold. Greenhouse gases trap heat like a blanket, so we definitely need some greenhouse gases. But as we add more CO2, we are slowly making the blanket thicker. Unfortunately, it seems that a rise of only a few degrees C will result in catastrophic consequences - as we are starting to experience today. It will only get worse unless we can reverse that balance. Hope that helps you understand why man's tiny contribution is a real problem.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1818 days ago)
So I'm still not convinced that the 2 degree warming in the last 100 years is caused by humans. It could be a natural part of earth maturing and going through its celestial phases. Could be due to the earth wobbles on its axis over time. CO2 released by all the volcanoes around the earth has been going on for billions of years and will continue into the future. Some people believe that the scientific journals methodically exclude evidence to the contrary of global warming. During the last 2 billion years, the Earth's climate has alternated between a frigid ice house and a steaming hot house. The climate change is very complex and CO2 is just one greenhouse gas and water vapor makes up for more than 72% of the greenhouse gas and we do not control the water vapor and anyone wishing to contribute CO2 as the main source of the global warming has an obligation to demonstrate this in a peer reviewed study.
ReplyVote up (259)down (269)
Original comment
So I'm still not convinced that the 2 degree warming in the last 100 years is caused by humans. It could be a natural part of earth maturing and going through its celestial phases. Could be due to the earth wobbles on its axis over time. CO2 released by all the volcanoes around the earth has been going on for billions of years and will continue into the future. Some people believe that the scientific journals methodically exclude evidence to the contrary of global warming. During the last 2 billion years, the Earth's climate has alternated between a frigid ice house and a steaming hot house. The climate change is very complex and CO2 is just one greenhouse gas and water vapor makes up for more than 72% of the greenhouse gas and we do not control the water vapor and anyone wishing to contribute CO2 as the main source of the global warming has an obligation to demonstrate this in a peer reviewed study.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1817 days ago)
You're right that climate science is very complex. That is why when 97% of climate scientists think you are wrong, I have to believe them, the experts. Otherwise I'd have to believe that you, a banker, had better expertise than the experts, or that 97% of climate scientists are lying or incompetent. If you were me, who would you believe?
ReplyVote up (256)down (252)
Original comment
You're right that climate science is very complex. That is why when 97% of climate scientists think you are wrong, I have to believe them, the experts. Otherwise I'd have to believe that you, a banker, had better expertise than the experts, or that 97% of climate scientists are lying or incompetent. If you were me, who would you believe?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1817 days ago)
Prove it to me that 97% of climate scientists think I'm wrong. Here are some links that list people that agree with me. Now show me a list of all the scientists that do believe it. Link 1: LINK Link 1: LINK
ReplyVote up (243)down (249)
Original comment
Prove it to me that 97% of climate scientists think I'm wrong. Here are some links that list people that agree with me. Now show me a list of all the scientists that do believe it. Link 1: LINK Link 1: LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1817 days ago)
From Wikipedia: "Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming." LINK
ReplyVote up (280)down (258)
Original comment
From Wikipedia: "Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming." LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1816 days ago)
walterego you really need go away and do some research before you spout shit. the "97% consensus" comes from a msc thesis by a m zimmerman in which of approx 10000 scientists polled 77 were selected by the way they described their field of study (climate scientist). 75 of 77 gives 97%. the other approx 9923 scientist's views were ignored. the study is a pile of shit statistically speaking as it suffers from selection bias. And btw wikipedia is not a good source for climate info as it suffers from warmist gatekeepers (william connolley for example (google him he's quite famous for this)) who's job it is to ensure only one side of the debate is presented even to the extent of erasing anything they disagree with or find inconvienient, (like the medievel warm period, roman warm period etc). you have to widen your search.
ReplyVote up (238)down (229)
Original comment
walterego you really need go away and do some research before you spout shit. the "97% consensus" comes from a msc thesis by a m zimmerman in which of approx 10000 scientists polled 77 were selected by the way they described their field of study (climate scientist). 75 of 77 gives 97%. the other approx 9923 scientist's views were ignored. the study is a pile of shit statistically speaking as it suffers from selection bias. And btw wikipedia is not a good source for climate info as it suffers from warmist gatekeepers (william connolley for example (google him he's quite famous for this)) who's job it is to ensure only one side of the debate is presented even to the extent of erasing anything they disagree with or find inconvienient, (like the medievel warm period, roman warm period etc). you have to widen your search.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1816 days ago)
Actually, the figures I cited are from a 2011 survey by George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Here's an overview of the survey: LINK The figures you cite are from a simple 2 question questionnaire by Doran and Zimmerman of Illinois University in 2009, but actually, they also agree. Think of it this way - if you are doing some heart research, it would be reasonable, even desirable, to select 1000 doctors, then just survey the cardiologists and ignore the the rest. That is what the Doran/Zimmerman survey did. It took 1000 scientists, and then just asked the 77 who were climatologists, and of that 77, 75 said they believed human activity was significant. You should think more when you read Alan Watts. He's a meteorologist turned climate skeptic who sounds like a fruitcake to me.
ReplyVote up (219)down (251)
Original comment
Actually, the figures I cited are from a 2011 survey by George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Here's an overview of the survey: LINK The figures you cite are from a simple 2 question questionnaire by Doran and Zimmerman of Illinois University in 2009, but actually, they also agree. Think of it this way - if you are doing some heart research, it would be reasonable, even desirable, to select 1000 doctors, then just survey the cardiologists and ignore the the rest. That is what the Doran/Zimmerman survey did. It took 1000 scientists, and then just asked the 77 who were climatologists, and of that 77, 75 said they believed human activity was significant. You should think more when you read Alan Watts. He's a meteorologist turned climate skeptic who sounds like a fruitcake to me.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1816 days ago)
Still comes under Lies damn lies and statistics, Unfortunately walter what you fail to understand is that "climate science" is a subject which has attracted a lot of people into it via ideology who call themselves "climate scientists" and im sorry to say walter, that too many of these are lacking the background in the relevant subjects physics mathematics geology chemistry (engineering is also good) ie hard sciences, ( earth sciences ? i dont think counts) which is probably why they cant seem to get the concept of error bars (for example) btw with respect to anthony watts meteorology ( or studying weather systems) seems to me to quite a good background for studying long term weather changes after all he spent most of his life taking actual measurements of the weather and trying to predict it. I think he's got a pretty good grounding on the level of errors the "climate scientists" are dealing with. you are right with the cardiologist analogy, we should restrict questions about climate to those qualified in thermodynamics ie physicists and engineers
ReplyVote up (239)down (241)
Original comment
Still comes under Lies damn lies and statistics, Unfortunately walter what you fail to understand is that "climate science" is a subject which has attracted a lot of people into it via ideology who call themselves "climate scientists" and im sorry to say walter, that too many of these are lacking the background in the relevant subjects physics mathematics geology chemistry (engineering is also good) ie hard sciences, ( earth sciences ? i dont think counts) which is probably why they cant seem to get the concept of error bars (for example) btw with respect to anthony watts meteorology ( or studying weather systems) seems to me to quite a good background for studying long term weather changes after all he spent most of his life taking actual measurements of the weather and trying to predict it. I think he's got a pretty good grounding on the level of errors the "climate scientists" are dealing with. you are right with the cardiologist analogy, we should restrict questions about climate to those qualified in thermodynamics ie physicists and engineers
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1817 days ago)
You cannot quote Wikipedia as a source. That is not factual and is written by people like you and me. I'd like to see a list like the one I provided going to senate.gov that lists scientists. By the way, I included 10 or 11 links but I see only two of them show up in my message. If you want, I will include the rest but it appears boreme will only allow a couple per message. First, I'm not disputing that the temperature has risen 2 degrees in the last 100 years. What I am disputing is that it is caused by human intervention. I'd like to know how many climate scientists there are in the world, how many of them have an opinion, how many of them say humans are the cause and how many say humans are not the cause. Suppose you cannot prove those facts to backup your claims can you? That would be details that you cannot get from wikipedia. Besides, there are some scientists that agree with me but refuse to state their opinion because of possible ridicule from their peers. This occurs when some scientists state they believe in a religion when the facts are clear that there is no supreme being. Knowing this, many religious scientists will claim to be atheists or not state their religious beliefs. I believe this could be the case with scientists and the cause of global warming too. There is too much political pressure and those scientists may get fired if they show signs of disagreement with the political agenda.
ReplyVote up (231)down (253)
Original comment
You cannot quote Wikipedia as a source. That is not factual and is written by people like you and me. I'd like to see a list like the one I provided going to senate.gov that lists scientists. By the way, I included 10 or 11 links but I see only two of them show up in my message. If you want, I will include the rest but it appears boreme will only allow a couple per message. First, I'm not disputing that the temperature has risen 2 degrees in the last 100 years. What I am disputing is that it is caused by human intervention. I'd like to know how many climate scientists there are in the world, how many of them have an opinion, how many of them say humans are the cause and how many say humans are not the cause. Suppose you cannot prove those facts to backup your claims can you? That would be details that you cannot get from wikipedia. Besides, there are some scientists that agree with me but refuse to state their opinion because of possible ridicule from their peers. This occurs when some scientists state they believe in a religion when the facts are clear that there is no supreme being. Knowing this, many religious scientists will claim to be atheists or not state their religious beliefs. I believe this could be the case with scientists and the cause of global warming too. There is too much political pressure and those scientists may get fired if they show signs of disagreement with the political agenda.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1816 days ago)
All the information you seek is out there, you only have to look for it. But sometimes I think getting into too much detail can distort the big picture. I'll just state why I'm convinced that scientists are right in claiming human activity is significant to climate change - We know how much fossil fuel we burn every year, so we know much greenhouse gases we add to the atmosphere every year. Although climate science is very complex, I believe that our understanding of science in general is good enough today to take scientific predictions very seriously. I think that if we can create anti-matter, unravel the human genome, land on Mars and build amazing smart phones, all very complex and overlapping areas of science, then I'm prepared to believe that when it comes to climate change, scientists are not way off the mark. On any global issue, politics will always get involved and muddy the waters - that's human nature. I guess that's why we are still having conversations like this.
ReplyVote up (265)down (270)
Original comment
All the information you seek is out there, you only have to look for it. But sometimes I think getting into too much detail can distort the big picture. I'll just state why I'm convinced that scientists are right in claiming human activity is significant to climate change - We know how much fossil fuel we burn every year, so we know much greenhouse gases we add to the atmosphere every year. Although climate science is very complex, I believe that our understanding of science in general is good enough today to take scientific predictions very seriously. I think that if we can create anti-matter, unravel the human genome, land on Mars and build amazing smart phones, all very complex and overlapping areas of science, then I'm prepared to believe that when it comes to climate change, scientists are not way off the mark. On any global issue, politics will always get involved and muddy the waters - that's human nature. I guess that's why we are still having conversations like this.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1816 days ago)
I agree with you about scientists probably know the truth. My disagreement with you is when you say, "I'm convinced that scientists are right in claiming human activity is significant to climate change". I still need proof that scientists are claiming that. You say they are but you offer no proof. I have offered proof to the contrary that scientists are not saying human activity is the cause so you should be able to offer proof of your statements too.
ReplyVote up (218)down (233)
Original comment
I agree with you about scientists probably know the truth. My disagreement with you is when you say, "I'm convinced that scientists are right in claiming human activity is significant to climate change". I still need proof that scientists are claiming that. You say they are but you offer no proof. I have offered proof to the contrary that scientists are not saying human activity is the cause so you should be able to offer proof of your statements too.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1816 days ago)
I'm not sure what constitutes proof for you. The Wikipedia quote I gave earlier simply referred to a paper that was published in Oct 2011 in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research by researchers from George Mason University in Washington DC. More on this paper: LINK Is that proof enough?
ReplyVote up (247)down (266)
Original comment
I'm not sure what constitutes proof for you. The Wikipedia quote I gave earlier simply referred to a paper that was published in Oct 2011 in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research by researchers from George Mason University in Washington DC. More on this paper: LINK Is that proof enough?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1816 days ago)
Sorry but that is not proof enough for me. I would like details with the names of those 489 people that responded. I would also like to know the people who were sent the survey but did not respond. That way, we can check out their credentials as well as their political affiliations. If my memory is correct (and I'm sure you can find out if I'm wrong), Only half of the surveys came back which represents the 489 people. So what happened to the other half that did not return the survey? Like I said earlier, they did not want to go down on record for being against the political agenda so they refused to return the survey. Every year, at my job, we have an associate satisfaction survey. Do you think I'm really going to tell them how I feel? No way. There are reasons why I do not and some have to do with what others may think about me (hard to get along with, etc) as well as upper management thinking that they should replace me with someone that could be better satisfied. Instead of lying about it, I just do not fill out the survey. So now I'm excluded from the results for a very specific reason and that may make the results appear more favorable for the association satisfaction statistics. Even questions like, "Are you satisfied with your pay?" How could I answer that?!?!? I might be satisfied but then if I say that they may not give out raises the following year. So as you can see, there are legitimate reasons for not returning or answering surveys.
ReplyVote up (242)down (263)
Original comment
Sorry but that is not proof enough for me. I would like details with the names of those 489 people that responded. I would also like to know the people who were sent the survey but did not respond. That way, we can check out their credentials as well as their political affiliations. If my memory is correct (and I'm sure you can find out if I'm wrong), Only half of the surveys came back which represents the 489 people. So what happened to the other half that did not return the survey? Like I said earlier, they did not want to go down on record for being against the political agenda so they refused to return the survey. Every year, at my job, we have an associate satisfaction survey. Do you think I'm really going to tell them how I feel? No way. There are reasons why I do not and some have to do with what others may think about me (hard to get along with, etc) as well as upper management thinking that they should replace me with someone that could be better satisfied. Instead of lying about it, I just do not fill out the survey. So now I'm excluded from the results for a very specific reason and that may make the results appear more favorable for the association satisfaction statistics. Even questions like, "Are you satisfied with your pay?" How could I answer that?!?!? I might be satisfied but then if I say that they may not give out raises the following year. So as you can see, there are legitimate reasons for not returning or answering surveys.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1816 days ago)
I don't need that level of proof when the weather we are experiencing matches the predictions. But as I said before, the information you seek is out there, you only have to look for it. Here's a taster from the EPW website: LINK
ReplyVote up (259)down (250)
Original comment
I don't need that level of proof when the weather we are experiencing matches the predictions. But as I said before, the information you seek is out there, you only have to look for it. Here's a taster from the EPW website: LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1816 days ago)
Quote from quarter of the way down the page: "Even some former climate deniers now see the light. Just this past weekend, Professor Richard Muller - a self-proclaimed climate skeptic - wrote the following in the New York Times: "Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause." The rest of the article is worth reading.
ReplyVote up (573)down (244)
Original comment
Quote from quarter of the way down the page: "Even some former climate deniers now see the light. Just this past weekend, Professor Richard Muller - a self-proclaimed climate skeptic - wrote the following in the New York Times: "Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause." The rest of the article is worth reading.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1816 days ago)
But that's just one additional person. So then that leaves 490 scientists that do believe in some type of global warming but only 85% of those believe it's caused by humas. Here's a list of over 700 scientists (more than your 490) that do not believe. This is just one example of links that I have. LINK
ReplyVote up (239)down (239)
Original comment
But that's just one additional person. So then that leaves 490 scientists that do believe in some type of global warming but only 85% of those believe it's caused by humas. Here's a list of over 700 scientists (more than your 490) that do not believe. This is just one example of links that I have. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1816 days ago)
I don't see your list of 700 scientists in any of your links. Am I missing something?
ReplyVote up (258)down (256)
Original comment
I don't see your list of 700 scientists in any of your links. Am I missing something?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1816 days ago)
Sorry, it looks like Boreme changes links somehow. Here is the link directly to the 255 page PDF document listing all the scientists and their credentials. epw.senate.gov/public/ind ex.cfm?FuseAction=Files.V iew
ReplyVote up (223)down (244)
Original comment
Sorry, it looks like Boreme changes links somehow. Here is the link directly to the 255 page PDF document listing all the scientists and their credentials. epw.senate.gov/public/ind ex.cfm?FuseAction=Files.V iew
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1815 days ago)
Unbelievable. Obviously Boreme has global warming as a political agenda. All my links stop working. I tested the previous link from 19 hours ago right after posting and it worked. Now it's missing parts of the link. Why would Boreme change the text of my message to remove critical parts? Anyway, let's try this again but this time I created a tinyurl version. I hope this works. LINK
ReplyVote up (236)down (275)
Original comment
Unbelievable. Obviously Boreme has global warming as a political agenda. All my links stop working. I tested the previous link from 19 hours ago right after posting and it worked. Now it's missing parts of the link. Why would Boreme change the text of my message to remove critical parts? Anyway, let's try this again but this time I created a tinyurl version. I hope this works. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
BoreMeEditor BoreMeEditor (1814 days ago)
Hi cengland0, BoreMe does not change links. If we find spam or inappropriate links, then we remove the whole comment. I don't know why your links changed, but it must be something to do with epw.senate.gov. If anybody knows, please explain.
ReplyVote up (238)down (233)
Original comment
Hi cengland0, BoreMe does not change links. If we find spam or inappropriate links, then we remove the whole comment. I don't know why your links changed, but it must be something to do with epw.senate.gov. If anybody knows, please explain.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1814 days ago)
Thank you BoreMeEditor. I've discovered that it truncates the links if it has an ampersand. In fact, I tried to put on in this message and it seems to have disappeared and had to spell out the name of the character instead of showing what it looks like.
ReplyVote up (238)down (239)
Original comment
Thank you BoreMeEditor. I've discovered that it truncates the links if it has an ampersand. In fact, I tried to put on in this message and it seems to have disappeared and had to spell out the name of the character instead of showing what it looks like.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1815 days ago)
The link works now. I wonder how our walter will try to refute it
ReplyVote up (216)down (240)
Original comment
The link works now. I wonder how our walter will try to refute it
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1814 days ago)
Your 'proof' is from the US Senate Minority Report published in 2008. This report was a follow up to a report in 2007 listing 400 scientists who disputed the man-made global warming claim. LINK Both reports have been discredited, largely for the same reason. The scientists polled were indeed scientists, but very few were climate scientists. The first report (400 scientists) is debunked here: LINK It ends with: "This report is one of the most dishonest documents, in both its content and its presentation, that I have ever read and the fact that it is hosted on a web server belonging to the US Government makes me ashamed." The second report (700 scientists) is debunked here: LINK Only 10% of the scientists polled could be considered climate scientists. There is even doubt on 4% on why they were included, since they have made statements that they agree with the consensus on man-made global warming. Contrast with the reports I offered where 100% were climate scientists. The definition of 'climate scientist' used in these reports (and in the debunking articles) is those who have actively published in the field. Is that proof enough for you that 97% of climate scientists agree that man-made global warming is significant?
ReplyVote up (240)down (251)
Original comment
Your 'proof' is from the US Senate Minority Report published in 2008. This report was a follow up to a report in 2007 listing 400 scientists who disputed the man-made global warming claim. LINK Both reports have been discredited, largely for the same reason. The scientists polled were indeed scientists, but very few were climate scientists. The first report (400 scientists) is debunked here: LINK It ends with: "This report is one of the most dishonest documents, in both its content and its presentation, that I have ever read and the fact that it is hosted on a web server belonging to the US Government makes me ashamed." The second report (700 scientists) is debunked here: LINK Only 10% of the scientists polled could be considered climate scientists. There is even doubt on 4% on why they were included, since they have made statements that they agree with the consensus on man-made global warming. Contrast with the reports I offered where 100% were climate scientists. The definition of 'climate scientist' used in these reports (and in the debunking articles) is those who have actively published in the field. Is that proof enough for you that 97% of climate scientists agree that man-made global warming is significant?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1814 days ago)
There was also a paper in 2010 called "Expert Credibility in Climate Change". This study found that 97% of 908 climate scientists with 20 or more papers published, agreed that man-made global warming was significant. The skeptics make up 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200. LINK
ReplyVote up (233)down (219)
Original comment
There was also a paper in 2010 called "Expert Credibility in Climate Change". This study found that 97% of 908 climate scientists with 20 or more papers published, agreed that man-made global warming was significant. The skeptics make up 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1814 days ago)
Did you read that credibility report? In my opinion, their criteria to determine who is an expert is bogus. They require that you publish papers in refereed journals to be an expert. Well, Al Gore is published and he is no expert. I consider myself an expert in my field but I have never published anything in a refereed journal so is this really the best criteria to use? Then, the article goes on to say that 4% of these people have published something stating they agree there is global warming and green house gases appear to be a significant cause. Remember, now, CO2 is a minor green house gas when you compare it to others like water vapor. Also notice that "Additional criteria were invoked, including attempts to determine the professional fields of the individuals on the list, as well as education degrees received" Not one comment disputed the professional fields of these 700 individuals or their eduction received. It was all about the published papers.
ReplyVote up (217)down (198)
Original comment
Did you read that credibility report? In my opinion, their criteria to determine who is an expert is bogus. They require that you publish papers in refereed journals to be an expert. Well, Al Gore is published and he is no expert. I consider myself an expert in my field but I have never published anything in a refereed journal so is this really the best criteria to use? Then, the article goes on to say that 4% of these people have published something stating they agree there is global warming and green house gases appear to be a significant cause. Remember, now, CO2 is a minor green house gas when you compare it to others like water vapor. Also notice that "Additional criteria were invoked, including attempts to determine the professional fields of the individuals on the list, as well as education degrees received" Not one comment disputed the professional fields of these 700 individuals or their eduction received. It was all about the published papers.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1814 days ago)
So let's pick just the first person on their credibility list: Dr. Philip Lloyd. His confirmed position, "formerly UN IPCC author on Carbon Capture; formerly in charge of South Africa's Chamber of Mines' Metallurgy Lab; former prof at U. Witwwatersrand;" Degree: PhD. field related to climate change? Yes peer-reviewed pub. (climate related)? No. So this person was considered to be some kind of non-expert because he did not have enough peer reviewed publications. Don't you see a problem with that credibility report now?
ReplyVote up (223)down (228)
Original comment
So let's pick just the first person on their credibility list: Dr. Philip Lloyd. His confirmed position, "formerly UN IPCC author on Carbon Capture; formerly in charge of South Africa's Chamber of Mines' Metallurgy Lab; former prof at U. Witwwatersrand;" Degree: PhD. field related to climate change? Yes peer-reviewed pub. (climate related)? No. So this person was considered to be some kind of non-expert because he did not have enough peer reviewed publications. Don't you see a problem with that credibility report now?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1814 days ago)
You asked for a high standard of proof, now you say the standard is too high. Dr Philip Lloyd is no doubt an expert in nuclear physics and chemical engineering, but he is not an expert in climate science. What better way to measure expertise than to require they are published scientists working in climate science. Publishing is a good criteria because it is very difficult to publish nonsense because of peer review. Also, these studies (in 2010 and 2011) were undertaken in response to the 700 scientists claim from the US Senate Minority Report in 2008 because scientists smelt a rat. The claim didn't make sense - how come there were so many dissenting scientists when the evidence is overwhelming? Now it does make sense: 700 scientists is a very small % of all scientists.
ReplyVote up (220)down (210)
Original comment
You asked for a high standard of proof, now you say the standard is too high. Dr Philip Lloyd is no doubt an expert in nuclear physics and chemical engineering, but he is not an expert in climate science. What better way to measure expertise than to require they are published scientists working in climate science. Publishing is a good criteria because it is very difficult to publish nonsense because of peer review. Also, these studies (in 2010 and 2011) were undertaken in response to the 700 scientists claim from the US Senate Minority Report in 2008 because scientists smelt a rat. The claim didn't make sense - how come there were so many dissenting scientists when the evidence is overwhelming? Now it does make sense: 700 scientists is a very small % of all scientists.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1814 days ago)
I didn't ask for a high standard of proof -- just proof. First, I do not dispute that the temperature may have risen 2 degrees, on average, in the last 100 years. My view matches your claim of 97% of scientists. I dispute the other part where 85% of those 97% believe the rise in temperature is due to human activity. You have failed to prove to me that the 85% of the scientists is a statistically valid representation of all climate scientists. Regarding Dr. Philip Lloyd, he was the UN IPCC author on Carbon Capture and in charge of South Africa's chamber of mines Metallurgy lab. How much better can you get when you're talking about carbon in our atmosphere? Regarding having a journal peer reviewed, that is unfair criteria to qualify to give an opinion because this is a controversial subject and some of the so-called scientists will disagree due to political reasons. I provided you with a list of 700 scientists that disagree that the 2 degree increase in temperature is caused by humans. You have NOT provided me a list of your 489 scientists with their credentials that do agree. Even if you did, my 700 outweighs your 489. THIS IS IMPORTANT: Did you realize, those 489 people are scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. According to your credibility study, some of the 700 scientists with those same credentials were marked as non experts in the field because they were not climatologists. Weird isn't it. Two different standards possibly? When you say 700 scientists is a small percentage of all scientists, that might be true but then that's still a bigger number than 489 isn't it. Also, all scientists is not a fair number because you could be a scientists because you research medicine. Those people do not qualify to give their opinion in this matter (unless they have additional credentials) so you cannot count them in the percentages. So how many climate related scientists are there anyway? Do you have that number because I don't. Therefore, I don't know if 700 represents a small number of those people or not.
ReplyVote up (223)down (221)
Original comment
I didn't ask for a high standard of proof -- just proof. First, I do not dispute that the temperature may have risen 2 degrees, on average, in the last 100 years. My view matches your claim of 97% of scientists. I dispute the other part where 85% of those 97% believe the rise in temperature is due to human activity. You have failed to prove to me that the 85% of the scientists is a statistically valid representation of all climate scientists. Regarding Dr. Philip Lloyd, he was the UN IPCC author on Carbon Capture and in charge of South Africa's chamber of mines Metallurgy lab. How much better can you get when you're talking about carbon in our atmosphere? Regarding having a journal peer reviewed, that is unfair criteria to qualify to give an opinion because this is a controversial subject and some of the so-called scientists will disagree due to political reasons. I provided you with a list of 700 scientists that disagree that the 2 degree increase in temperature is caused by humans. You have NOT provided me a list of your 489 scientists with their credentials that do agree. Even if you did, my 700 outweighs your 489. THIS IS IMPORTANT: Did you realize, those 489 people are scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. According to your credibility study, some of the 700 scientists with those same credentials were marked as non experts in the field because they were not climatologists. Weird isn't it. Two different standards possibly? When you say 700 scientists is a small percentage of all scientists, that might be true but then that's still a bigger number than 489 isn't it. Also, all scientists is not a fair number because you could be a scientists because you research medicine. Those people do not qualify to give their opinion in this matter (unless they have additional credentials) so you cannot count them in the percentages. So how many climate related scientists are there anyway? Do you have that number because I don't. Therefore, I don't know if 700 represents a small number of those people or not.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1814 days ago)
Calm down, you've argued intelligently up to now. I cannot quote specific details from the 2011 "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" study because it requires registering with the International Journal of Public Opinion Research. LINK Feel free to register and let me know the details. I got my information from a journalist's resource site that looked at the report. In the 2010 "Expert Credibility in Climate Change" study, again I can't get the details, but the journalist's resource site quotes: "About 97% of the group with the most expertise - the 908 climate scientists with 20 or more papers published - are convinced by the evidence of human-induced climate change." If you want to play the numbers game, then 908 is bigger than 700.
ReplyVote up (220)down (245)
Original comment
Calm down, you've argued intelligently up to now. I cannot quote specific details from the 2011 "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" study because it requires registering with the International Journal of Public Opinion Research. LINK Feel free to register and let me know the details. I got my information from a journalist's resource site that looked at the report. In the 2010 "Expert Credibility in Climate Change" study, again I can't get the details, but the journalist's resource site quotes: "About 97% of the group with the most expertise - the 908 climate scientists with 20 or more papers published - are convinced by the evidence of human-induced climate change." If you want to play the numbers game, then 908 is bigger than 700.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1814 days ago)
I don't think you really understand the difference between your 700 list and the 2 studies that were set up to check it. The 700 list is a hand-picked list of anyone who is a skeptic as long as 'science' is in their credentials. If the researchers kept looking, they would find many more. The world is a big place and there are a lot of scientists. The 2 studies were surveys with climate scientists selected by the quantity of publications, ie. without bias except that publications are checked by other experts. They are not hand-picked because they agree with man-made global warming. Philip Lloyd's opinion would have been counted if he was working in climate science and had published work. It was totally the right thing to do to add the 'publishing' criteria - without it any list is meaningless unless you poll all scientists.
ReplyVote up (218)down (229)
Original comment
I don't think you really understand the difference between your 700 list and the 2 studies that were set up to check it. The 700 list is a hand-picked list of anyone who is a skeptic as long as 'science' is in their credentials. If the researchers kept looking, they would find many more. The world is a big place and there are a lot of scientists. The 2 studies were surveys with climate scientists selected by the quantity of publications, ie. without bias except that publications are checked by other experts. They are not hand-picked because they agree with man-made global warming. Philip Lloyd's opinion would have been counted if he was working in climate science and had published work. It was totally the right thing to do to add the 'publishing' criteria - without it any list is meaningless unless you poll all scientists.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1814 days ago)
Okay, I'm done. You successfully won this one by wearing me out. Obviously I do not have the proper stamina to keep up with this discussion. It seems we are just going in circles so I have no option but to give up.
ReplyVote up (237)down (227)
Original comment
Okay, I'm done. You successfully won this one by wearing me out. Obviously I do not have the proper stamina to keep up with this discussion. It seems we are just going in circles so I have no option but to give up.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Blong Blong (1813 days ago)
Actually you have no option but to accept that the experts (climate scientists) are right and you (banker) are wrong
ReplyVote up (231)down (206)
Original comment
Actually you have no option but to accept that the experts (climate scientists) are right and you (banker) are wrong
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1813 days ago)
you can't argue with our walter, he's just a brain damaged useful idiot who thinks that science is decided by opinion polls, surveys,and who has the biggest megaphone, pr budget etc , and not by the scientific method. he is anti science.
ReplyVote up (226)down (216)
Original comment
you can't argue with our walter, he's just a brain damaged useful idiot who thinks that science is decided by opinion polls, surveys,and who has the biggest megaphone, pr budget etc , and not by the scientific method. he is anti science.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1813 days ago)
I didn't wear you out, I just answered your questions. I hope you can now accept that since 97% of climate scientists (85% if you prefer) think you are wrong, you probably are - and do what the lady in the video did, change and accept reality. Thanks for the conversation, I learnt quite a bit from that as well.
ReplyVote up (204)down (221)
Original comment
I didn't wear you out, I just answered your questions. I hope you can now accept that since 97% of climate scientists (85% if you prefer) think you are wrong, you probably are - and do what the lady in the video did, change and accept reality. Thanks for the conversation, I learnt quite a bit from that as well.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1817 days ago)
I generally agree, however i should add that the peer review process is somewhat incestuous in climate science (its called pal review, ie you scratch my back, i scratch yours ) there is a general reluctance to allow the data and workings to be replicated by independant scientists. Independant scientists SHOULD NOT be forced to do freedom of information requests to get the data in order to show that certain papers are fundamentally flawed. in my opinion BIG RED FLAG.
ReplyVote up (178)down (200)
Original comment
I generally agree, however i should add that the peer review process is somewhat incestuous in climate science (its called pal review, ie you scratch my back, i scratch yours ) there is a general reluctance to allow the data and workings to be replicated by independant scientists. Independant scientists SHOULD NOT be forced to do freedom of information requests to get the data in order to show that certain papers are fundamentally flawed. in my opinion BIG RED FLAG.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1819 days ago)
Don't worry love, the world's ending on your 60th birthday...
ReplyVote up (222)down (240)
Original comment
Don't worry love, the world's ending on your 60th birthday...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1818 days ago)
Was she ever skeptical ? she reminds me of those " invalids" suddenly cured by the power of jesus. please donate here !
ReplyVote up (229)down (215)
Original comment
Was she ever skeptical ? she reminds me of those " invalids" suddenly cured by the power of jesus. please donate here !
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1818 days ago)
btw please note the use of the word skeptic instead of denial. in my opinion people who use the phrase "climate change denial" are retards who lack the intelligence to understand how science works. thats why they have to resort to stupid insults.
ReplyVote up (213)down (213)
Original comment
btw please note the use of the word skeptic instead of denial. in my opinion people who use the phrase "climate change denial" are retards who lack the intelligence to understand how science works. thats why they have to resort to stupid insults.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guesst2 (1818 days ago)
A climate change skeptic is one that argues specific scientific points or refutes the data. Those that insist it isn't happening without understanding the overwhelming evidence is a denier. Being against it because of faith is a denier.
ReplyVote up (210)down (229)
Original comment
A climate change skeptic is one that argues specific scientific points or refutes the data. Those that insist it isn't happening without understanding the overwhelming evidence is a denier. Being against it because of faith is a denier.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1818 days ago)
And i should also add somebody who uses the phrase "overwhelming evidence" is obviously scientifically naive. if the evidence is so overwhelming why do the warmists need to fiddle the data so much hockey sticks anyone ?
ReplyVote up (218)down (231)
Original comment
And i should also add somebody who uses the phrase "overwhelming evidence" is obviously scientifically naive. if the evidence is so overwhelming why do the warmists need to fiddle the data so much hockey sticks anyone ?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guesst2 (1816 days ago)
I am not a scientist, but I have read layman science magazines like Scientific American and Discover for many years. I suggest you do the same so you can get the range of opinions from many scientists. It's an imperfect process, as is the continuing development of the Theory of Evolution. Just as scientists are continually refining Evolution and trying to answer mysteries or areas of contradictions, it is all pointing in the same general direction...Example for climate science: trapped atmospheric bubbles in ice cores correlate strongly with the large climate swings that have occurred naturally over the Earth's history. However, those changes happened quickly in geological time ( 100,000 year period, etc). The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has "spiked" to the same near-maximum levels the corresponded with the hotter times in Earth History...but the increase in carbon dioxide levels only took 100 years - because of human caused emissions. That is a hockey stick in carbon dioxide levels. What that means to actual climate over the next 100 years is the experiment that we are all doing together.
ReplyVote up (206)down (220)
Original comment
I am not a scientist, but I have read layman science magazines like Scientific American and Discover for many years. I suggest you do the same so you can get the range of opinions from many scientists. It's an imperfect process, as is the continuing development of the Theory of Evolution. Just as scientists are continually refining Evolution and trying to answer mysteries or areas of contradictions, it is all pointing in the same general direction...Example for climate science: trapped atmospheric bubbles in ice cores correlate strongly with the large climate swings that have occurred naturally over the Earth's history. However, those changes happened quickly in geological time ( 100,000 year period, etc). The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has "spiked" to the same near-maximum levels the corresponded with the hotter times in Earth History...but the increase in carbon dioxide levels only took 100 years - because of human caused emissions. That is a hockey stick in carbon dioxide levels. What that means to actual climate over the next 100 years is the experiment that we are all doing together.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1814 days ago)
im also not a climate scientist, but i do have a physics degree so as a layman you could say i have a pretty good handle on the "science". and im just a bit skeptical but your be pleased to know, on good scientific grounds Btw the ice core co2 levels FOLLOWS the temp record with i belive roughly a 800 year lag. if there is any causal relationship to be made its rising temps causes (eventually) a co2 rise. (however i should add that the assumption that air bubbles remain invoilate in ice retaining their respective proportions of CO2, N2, O2, for thousands of years before being retrieved without contaminating the sample (CO2 is very soluble in water compared to O2, N2) has to my mind been a bit tenous, I think its a bit like trying to give a urine sample by going outside and pissing in a bucket during a force 10 storm. there will be some liquid in the bucket but it probably wont be urine )
ReplyVote up (260)down (236)
Original comment
im also not a climate scientist, but i do have a physics degree so as a layman you could say i have a pretty good handle on the "science". and im just a bit skeptical but your be pleased to know, on good scientific grounds Btw the ice core co2 levels FOLLOWS the temp record with i belive roughly a 800 year lag. if there is any causal relationship to be made its rising temps causes (eventually) a co2 rise. (however i should add that the assumption that air bubbles remain invoilate in ice retaining their respective proportions of CO2, N2, O2, for thousands of years before being retrieved without contaminating the sample (CO2 is very soluble in water compared to O2, N2) has to my mind been a bit tenous, I think its a bit like trying to give a urine sample by going outside and pissing in a bucket during a force 10 storm. there will be some liquid in the bucket but it probably wont be urine )
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: steve-o (1583 days ago)
Latest comment: it's so depressing when idiots (even with degrees) quote the hockey stick. Geez - 2 minutes on Google and you have the facts from dozens of different sources. The sad fact is people want to believe that it is a hoax, and it really doesn't matter what evidence exists - in much the same way religion needs no evidence, so deniers quote bullshit from beginning to end. The science isn't settled - yes it is, and has been for a long time.
ReplyVote up (227)down (233)
Original comment
Latest comment: it's so depressing when idiots (even with degrees) quote the hockey stick. Geez - 2 minutes on Google and you have the facts from dozens of different sources. The sad fact is people want to believe that it is a hoax, and it really doesn't matter what evidence exists - in much the same way religion needs no evidence, so deniers quote bullshit from beginning to end. The science isn't settled - yes it is, and has been for a long time.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: JoeTaicoon (1818 days ago)
So when she doesn't beleive, she works hard to make sure everyone else doesn't beleive. Now that she beleives, she will work hard to make sure everyone else beleives. While I am happy for her that she now has less faith in Bill, she seems like an anoying missionary "my way of the wrong way" kind of person.
ReplyVote up (183)down (200)
Original comment
So when she doesn't beleive, she works hard to make sure everyone else doesn't beleive. Now that she beleives, she will work hard to make sure everyone else beleives. While I am happy for her that she now has less faith in Bill, she seems like an anoying missionary "my way of the wrong way" kind of person.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Iceman (1817 days ago)
who the fuc, is peddling this shit?
ReplyVote up (184)down (222)
Original comment
who the fuc, is peddling this shit?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAlanius MissAlanius (1813 days ago)
Anyone who can accept an error of such magnitude, must have some special qualities
ReplyVote up (218)down (270)
Original comment
Anyone who can accept an error of such magnitude, must have some special qualities
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
What drives Elon Musk?
What drives Elon Musk?
How Bill Gates reads books
How Bill Gates reads books
Georgia Dome demolition fail
Georgia Dome demolition fail
Rifle inspection at Arlington National Cemetery (with close-up sounds)
Rifle inspection at Arlington National Cemetery (with close-up sounds)
Huang Yi & KUKA - Man and machine dance in harmony
Huang Yi & KUKA - Man and machine dance in harmony