The 95% consensus is now just 43%

futurecurrents · Sep 5, 2015

gwb-trading said:
David S - this is what is passed off as rational discourse by AGW pushers.

This is why rational, educated, intelligent skeptics on ET have very little tolerance of Climate Change advocates in these forums.

"Intelligent" and "Skeptic" are mutually exclusive terms.

Now "skeptic" and "pig headed moronic ignorant ideologue" DO belong together.

gwb-trading · Sep 6, 2015

futurecurrents said:
"Intelligent" and "Skeptic" are mutually exclusive terms.

Now "skeptic" and "pig headed moronic ignorant ideologue" DO belong together.

David S · Sep 9, 2015

gwb-trading said:
I will be polite and attempt to answer your questions above.

1. As noted earlier over 300 scientists have come out stating their papers are mis-classified - most have multiple papers. You are welcome to go through the many articles on google and create an entire list. After you have done so - please feel free to post the entire list of scientists to this forum. Each article outlines a few dissenting scientists - there are many of them out there. You wanted a number - the number is currently at 300 and increasing.

2. The actual surveys (many of them posted in these forums) in recent years show a consensus on AGW among scientists of a mere 53% and dropping each year. Why do politicians and advocates only quote the fabricated "97% Consensus" figure which is solely supported by only two items - by the Doran survey (77 out of 79 scientists - when pruned down from over 3000 responders), and the Cook evaluation of scientific papers which fails on many levels. Why are the many other surveys on global warming ignored? Well let me answer, it does not support their politics.

3. The reason to fight against AGW is because it undermines the integrity of science for political purposes and drives failed public policy which misspends money. "Climate Change" is a $1.5 Trillion per year industry built around a problem that does not exist. A far greater danger to mankind is natural global cooling (which is around the corner). There are many obvious environmental issues where "green" money could be better spent such as pollution, hard-particle pollution from smokestacks (not CO2), coastal fisheries, limiting development in ecologically critical areas, and preservation of natural lands via parks, etc.

Sadly many of the "green" initiatives I support including solar, wind, micro-grid, back-metering, electric cars, smoke-stack scrubbers, and preserving rivers/coastal areas are undermined by AGW - causing the real problems not be focused on. Imagine if the $1.5 Trillion per year were used to address these problems plus the issues facing people such food, clean water, shelter, and medical care world-wide.

"Climate Change" is merely a money-making grab for hedge funds (Al Gore's GIM as an example), consulting firms, and government grant receivers - all of them driving flawed science to support the money in their pocket.

Around 2040 or so - AGW will be viewed as the largest scientific fraud of the previous century.

Thank you for the polite and organized response.

1. Where do you get the 300 number? Seriously, I keep looking, and the articles keep coming back to the same few scientists. Do you have a link for the 300? This could potentially settle this particular question.

2. I am having trouble finding reliable surveys showing this "53% and dropping" number you are discussing. On this forum, for example, there was this link: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/le...tists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/#_ref1

This link parses the language over and over (lies, damn lies, and statistics) to suggest that there is a major disagreement about AGW among the scientists surveyed. There IS some disagreement, but it is all in matters of degrees of certainty and degrees of impact, NOT regarding the fundamental question of whether or not AGW is happening. The charts cited in this very study support the statement I just made.

3. While I have no doubt that there is money being wasted in some ways (and in general I am not a fan of carbon trading, though it has SOME merits), it seems to me that many of the goals you outlined (solar, wind, preservation, water protection, etc.) are perfectly in line with the goals of most scientists and activists engaged in stopping AGW. Having a hard time seeing the conflict here, perhaps you can elucidate.

Thanks!

David S · Sep 9, 2015

gwb-trading said:
David S - this is what is passed off as rational discourse by AGW pushers.

This is why rational, educated, intelligent skeptics on ET have very little tolerance of Climate Change advocates in these forums.

With all due respect, sir, you have engaged on this same level with, for example, the "stupidity level" meter you posted. Did you start it? Maybe not, but that doesn't excuse it or leave you any moral high ground.

gwb-trading · Sep 9, 2015

David S said:
With all due respect, sir, you have engaged on this same level with, for example, the "stupidity level" meter you posted. Did you start it? Maybe not, but that doesn't excuse it or leave you any moral high ground.

This is because I am tired (along with many others) of putting up with the continual abuse from futurecurrents.

Let's take a look at his usual posts...

http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...womens-locker-room.290126/page-3#post-4096578

David S · Sep 9, 2015

gwb-trading said:
This is because I am tired (along with many others) of putting up with the continual abuse from futurecurrents.

Let's take a look at his usual posts...

http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...womens-locker-room.290126/page-3#post-4096578

I get that, but if you wish to have an elevated discussion, you have a responsibility to not engage on that level. Believe me, I've been tempted a time or two during various online discussions, but have opted to avoid such tactics. We can only be responsible for our own behavior.

Ricter · Sep 9, 2015

David S said:
I get that, but if you wish to have an elevated discussion, you have a responsibility to not engage on that level. Believe me, I've been tempted a time or two during various online discussions, but have opted to avoid such tactics. We can only be responsible for our own behavior.

Max E. Pad started the whole gay incest routine first.

David S · Sep 9, 2015

Ricter said:
Max E. Pad started the whole gay incest routine first.

I am not interested in who started it. Like I tell my kids when they fight, they each have the opportunity and responsibility to stop the fight and turn things around. I am an idealist, for sure, and I hold on to the hope that we can have adult discussions about weighty issues like this one and together get closer to the truth. That rarely happens when we're calling each other names.

gwb-trading · Sep 9, 2015

David S said:
I get that, but if you wish to have an elevated discussion, you have a responsibility to not engage on that level. Believe me, I've been tempted a time or two during various online discussions, but have opted to avoid such tactics. We can only be responsible for our own behavior.

I am civil to those who treat me civilly. Futurecurrents is one mis-step from being banned on ET. Futurecurrents has stepped beyond all reasonable tolerance in a discussion forum.

Can you find any other poster on ET that I have not treated with respect.

David S · Sep 9, 2015

gwb-trading said:
I am civil to those who treat me civilly. Futurecurrents is one mis-step from being banned on ET. Futurecurrents has stepped beyond all reasonable tolerance in a discussion forum.

Can you find any other poster on ET that I have not treated with respect.

I'm glad you are civil, thank you for hearing my feedback. On with the discussion...