Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Trumpled (Alternative Leading) (Read 388332 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #60 –
Quote from: Mav on
Has the virus mutated in a way that now causes microcephaly?  Is there something else which causes microcephaly which accompanies this Brasilian iteration of the virus but one which will follow the virus to the US and cause birth defects in the US?  There's no doubt that Brasil has suffered a significant increase in microcephaly.  The exact vector doesn't really matter.  While there's a chance that the US will suffer the same increase, it will be an issue in the Presidential election which will be held s bit less than 9 months from now, a significant figure when it comes to childbirth.

Quote
There's no doubt that Brasil has suffered a significant increase in microcephaly.

Really?

Show me the numbers Mav....or was the record keeping/taking just sloppy or non existent previously?

An S or a Z - that is the question! :)
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #61 –
I've noticed a weird trend on this site.  Discussions or debates usually involve people putting their best arguments forward immediately and then discussing the merits of them.  But on here, "discussions" are like poker games where cards are kept close to the chest.  Instead of just saying, "You're wrong because of X, Y and Z", posters are instead saying, "You're wrong but I'm not going to tell you why - you'll have to figure it out yourself".  Then follows a tedious exchange before said poster relents and starts to engage.  Is the idea to build up some dramatic tension? In any event, I wish it would stop and people would get down to tin tacks quickly.  I'm not interested in being a devil's advocate and I'm not intent on winning a debate at all costs.  If someone else has a good point to make, I want to hear it.

I'm willing to wait for further medical and epidemiological developments which unfortunately will take time to occur.  At the political level, though, the possibility that the Zika virus might invade the US and leave widespread birth defects in its wake will raise the issues of climate change and abortion.  After all, even if this scare turns out to be a non-event, there will always be the possibility that real dangers will follow in its wake.  After all, the ISIS attacks in Paris and the attack by ISIS admirers in San Bernadino haven't led to anything more recently, yet the hysteria inspired by them continues to be a real election issue.  For middle America, a personal question would be asked about what should be done if a loved one contracts a virus which may create birth defects which will create lifelong impacts on the whole family.  People are uncomfortable when told that they can do all the right things but still be dealt a bad hand, as with cancer. 

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #64 –
Are you suggesting the IPCC should be even-handed when 97% of climate scientists support the climate change  model?

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #66 –
Quote from: Mav on
Are you suggesting the IPCC should be even-handed when 97% of climate scientists support the climate change  model?

Very trite Mav. Don't be a follower.... you know that stat is BS.

Do some more homework Mav.

Here's one decent source from a 3 second Google search. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #67 –
just to finish that one off Mav, try

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta;jsessionid=F6AB42449095EC798501DCDFB7B8BA67.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org

Funnily enough the relevant stats are 97.1% of the 32.6% of papers that endorsed AGW.

In my world 97.1% of 32.6% = 31.6%.

But heck! We all know about stats!

Quote
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #68 –
Hundreds of Australian scientist's jobs are being made redundant at the moment because they don't believe we need to invest anymore money in proving climate change because it's already proven.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #69 –
Quote from: madbluboy on
Hundreds of Australian scientist's jobs are being made redundant at the moment because they don't believe we need to invest anymore money in proving climate change because it's already proven.

What exactly are you saying has been proven MBB?

Certainly, I agree that man does not do the planet any favours vis a vis pollution etc but nothing at all supports a proposition that an increase in CO2 levels cause an increase in temperatures....

In fact, global temperatures (whatever that means - how do you determine an average temperature for the world?) have been static or in decline for nearly 20 years now - all in the face of significantly higher CO2 levels.

Indeed, why is more CO2 a bad things in any event? Why pick on CO2 - after all, it's a cornerstone of all life on this planet!

Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #70 –
Intriguing that you'd let a climate change skeptic interpret the figures for you.  At least it wasn't written by Loony Lord Monckton, I guess.

At page 1035, the writers of the study noted that:

Quote
Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change. These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change (Farnsworth and Lichter 2012; Bray 2010).

You can choose not to believe climate scientists as being self-interested bandwagonners if you wish but I reckon I'll stick to the experts thank you very much.  And the very study that you rely upon shows that 93% of them are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. 

Remember that even fewer than 7% of climate scientists actually disputed that there is global warming.  Much of the study was directed to determining how much humans contributed to it.  Just because some climate scientists do not think humans are the primary cause doesn't mean that those scientists regard attempts to limit human contributions as futile.  Your friendly sceptic tried to suck everyone in by painting everyone who didn't say humans were the primary cause of GW as climate change skeptics, as well as trying to disregard the actual scientists who are working in the field.  Naughty, naughty.

Also remember that the survey was of the members of the American Meteorological Society which is only a subset of the relevant fields comprehended by climate science, and only 26.3% of the professional members of the society responded to the survey.

I'm not seeing any serious challenge to the predominance of the climate change model but maybe you can find something better elsewhere ...

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #71 –
Quote from: madbluboy on
Hundreds of Australian scientist's jobs are being made redundant at the moment because they don't believe we need to invest anymore money in proving climate change because it's already proven.

Saw an interview last week of the head of the CSIRO, forget his name, who stated that the focus would be changed from proving that climate change is actually happening to researching into what can be done to slow it down to manageable/safe levels and with a definite commercial bent. He went on to state that there would not be an overall reduction in staff, but I guess the actual skills required will change.
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #72 –
Quote from: cookie2 on
Saw an interview last week of the head of the CSIRO, forget his name, who stated that the focus would be changed from proving that climate change is actually happening to researching into what can be done to slow it down to manageable/safe levels and with a definite commercial bent. He went on to state that there would not be an overall reduction in staff, but I guess the actual skills required will change.

I'd be far more worried about global cooling if I were him. Far more people will suffer/die in the event of cooling rather than warming.
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #73 –
ps Mav, I'll take it as a given that your last lengthy rant was your cute way of now saying that you agree the 97% claim is unaldulterated BS.

QED
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #74 –
By the way, why is it even relevant to argue that some or all of Climate Change is natural?  Or that there are other sources of carbon dioxide?

If climate change will radically affect the lives of the world's population, shouldn't we be trying to do all we can to put a break on it?  If that means scaling back emissions and that will have a beneficial effect, then we should do it, shouldn't we?

It's not as though we have made a habit of accepting Nature's interventions with a shrug of the shoulders.  How would the Netherlands have fared if it didn't erect dykes to keep out seawater?  What the hell are those dams doing throughout the world and how did Lake Burley Griffin and Albert Park Lake get there?  Heard of the desalination plant?  Heard of the saying, "If God wanted us to fly, he'd have given us wings"?

Sure as hell, if Lindsay Fox finds that his beachside property is being eroded by rising sea levels, he'll be the first to reinforce his boundaries. 

Should we bother about trying to stop asteroids landing and kicking up dust which will accelerate the greenhouse effect?  Hell no, that's a natural event.  If it happens, then God wanted it that way.

Love the cute intervention of CSIRO management.  Pardon me if I think that the Liberal Government has something to do with that.  First we had the attempt to set up a Climate Change denier in a government-funded school in a WA Uni.  Now we're expected to believe that we can all assume that Climate Change is real and it's now time to do something about it.  Hmmmm.  Shut down enough research into climate change and the Government can start putting money into "clean coal" research as its lame contribution to taking action.  No doubt much money can be shovelled into the amazing little black rock ...