Half of meteorologists don’t believe in man-made global warming. American Meteorological Society
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/
Comments
-
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2014
50.9% to 45.3% for votes in the house = the people have spoken, time to overturn obamacare and impeach Obama.
48% to 52% for human caused climate change = see, we told you that man made climate change is a hoax. -
Daily caller? That's your source?
-
I trust meteorologists over climate change scientists. That's what I do.
-
You really are fucking stupid. The Daily Caller wrote an article about a report published in the Journal of The American Meteorological Society. The Report is linked first. I suggest you read it. I really doubt that you had time to read it between my post and yours.2001400ex said:Daily caller? That's your source?
-
Don't attack Hondo's religion
Three replies in a row is puppy territory -
Don't attack puppy. Responding without ever saying anything is Race territory.RaceBannon said:Don't attack Hondo's religion
Three replies in a row is puppy territory -
I notice how you skip over my first response. ;-)d2d said:
You really are fucking stupid. The Daily Caller wrote an article about a report published in the Journal of The American Meteorological Society. The Report is linked first. I suggest you read it. I really doubt that you had time to read it between my post and yours.2001400ex said:Daily caller? That's your source?
-
And 2 more
-
I've said this before but it would help if the scientists actually put a percentage on how much impact man has on climate change. If it's .3%, wgaf.
-
0 contribution. Still.RaceBannon said:And 2 more
-
That's not what the study found. Your Daily Caller article is LYING.d2d said:"The survey of AMS members found that while 52 percent of American Meteorological Society members believe climate change is occurring and mostly human-induced, 48 percent of members do not believe in man-made global warming. Furthermore, the survey found that scientists who professed “liberal political views” were much more likely to believe in the theory of man-made global warming than those who without liberal views. The result suggests that members of professional scientific organizations have not been immune to influence by the political polarization on climate change that has affected politicians and the general public" Professor Neil Stenhouse, George Mason University.
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/
Only 4 percent of respondents to the study said that global warming is not happening. -
Hondo for the easy win.
-
Correct, but what Death is citing is different than what you're citing. He's specifically talking about the man-made part, which 52% agree is mostly man-made, although you should also include the 11% that there is some evidence that it is human but not enough evidence overall to differentiate source.AZDuck said:
That's not what the study found. Your Daily Caller article is LYING.d2d said:"The survey of AMS members found that while 52 percent of American Meteorological Society members believe climate change is occurring and mostly human-induced, 48 percent of members do not believe in man-made global warming. Furthermore, the survey found that scientists who professed “liberal political views” were much more likely to believe in the theory of man-made global warming than those who without liberal views. The result suggests that members of professional scientific organizations have not been immune to influence by the political polarization on climate change that has affected politicians and the general public" Professor Neil Stenhouse, George Mason University.
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/
Only 4 percent of respondents to the study said that global warming is not happening. -
Actually, 52 plus 10 for half, 5 for some, 11 down in the insufficient. And we are at 78% that think humans are at least partially responsible. And 96% say that the earth is warmer regardless of the reason.whatshouldicareabout said:
Correct, but what Death is citing is different than what you're citing. He's specifically talking about the man-made part, which 52% agree is mostly man-made, although you should also include the 11% that there is some evidence that it is human but not enough evidence overall to differentiate source.AZDuck said:
That's not what the study found. Your Daily Caller article is LYING.d2d said:"The survey of AMS members found that while 52 percent of American Meteorological Society members believe climate change is occurring and mostly human-induced, 48 percent of members do not believe in man-made global warming. Furthermore, the survey found that scientists who professed “liberal political views” were much more likely to believe in the theory of man-made global warming than those who without liberal views. The result suggests that members of professional scientific organizations have not been immune to influence by the political polarization on climate change that has affected politicians and the general public" Professor Neil Stenhouse, George Mason University.
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/
Only 4 percent of respondents to the study said that global warming is not happening.
But again, death is smarter than people who study this for a living. Not to mention that his news source is lying to him. -
-
Does it embarrass you that you get your news from comics?
-
Half of all meteorologists are blonde bimbos with fake boobs, too. The other half are brunettes with fake boobs.
http://www.popcrunch.com/10-hottest-weather-girls-ever/
-
And they can't predict the weather, their job, better than random chance. I don't give a fuck what they think, either way.PurpleThrobber said:Half of all meteorologists are blonde bimbos with fake boobs, too. The other half are brunettes with fake boobs.
http://www.popcrunch.com/10-hottest-weather-girls-ever/ -
So we should listen to Steve Pool and Matt Zuffino when it comes to the global climate?
lol
Fuck off. -
Steve Pool does not have fake boobs. So, no.dflea said:So we should listen to Steve Pool and Matt Zuffino when it comes to the global climate?
lol
Fuck off.
-
We shouldn't listen to anyone until they can tell what man's role is and what if anything would actually make a difference and what it would involve cost wise.
Until then it's all bullshit and no one wants to give any of their shit up.
Fucked up light bulbs aren't the answer
Fuck off -
Even if the vast majority of everyone who actually studies this for a living is wrong (cause clearly you are smarter than then). The worst case scenario is we have a cleaner environment. I think it's a win win. But you too busy slurping on Republican nut sack.RaceBannon said:We shouldn't listen to anyone until they can tell what man's role is and what if anything would actually make a difference and what it would involve cost wise.
Until then it's all bullshit and no one wants to give any of their shit up.
Fucked up light bulbs aren't the answer
Fuck off -
Sounds grand, but FS...although not as FS as your lame 'I Love Lamp' equivalent you ended the Antarctica thread with (or pretty much anything you typed in that thread...)2001400ex said:
Even if the vast majority of everyone who actually studies this for a living is wrong (cause clearly you are smarter than then). The worst case scenario is we have a cleaner environment. I think it's a win win. But you too busy slurping on Republican nut sack.RaceBannon said:We shouldn't listen to anyone until they can tell what man's role is and what if anything would actually make a difference and what it would involve cost wise.
Until then it's all bullshit and no one wants to give any of their shit up.
Fucked up light bulbs aren't the answer
Fuck off
Two of many examples...CO2 capture and batteries. CO2 capture is a technology the govt spends a ton of money on and it trying to push via CO2 credits. Does it make sense to spend more than 1/3 of the power output of an electrical plant to "capture" the CO2 and pump it really far into the ground? That means you burn up 1/3 more hydrocarbons, and have to build 1/3 more power plants. FS. As for batteries, its the new "environmental car", but if you look at the overall energy efficiency vs. gasoline it can't come close to matching it (and doesn't even match the carbon efficiency in most places...), and on top of that you start manufacturing a boatload of batteries that have all sorts of toxic chemicals in them. FS.
Both "solutions" resulting in a "cleaner environment" and both FS...
-
Gas is the most efficient so we shouldn't look for alternatives. Great thinking there genius. What do you think about ethanol, otherwise known as the plan the conservatives pushed when they were in power. That worked out well,, right?HoustonHusky said:
Sounds grand, but FS...although not as FS as your lame 'I Love Lamp' equivalent you ended the Antarctica thread with (or pretty much anything you typed in that thread...)2001400ex said:
Even if the vast majority of everyone who actually studies this for a living is wrong (cause clearly you are smarter than then). The worst case scenario is we have a cleaner environment. I think it's a win win. But you too busy slurping on Republican nut sack.RaceBannon said:We shouldn't listen to anyone until they can tell what man's role is and what if anything would actually make a difference and what it would involve cost wise.
Until then it's all bullshit and no one wants to give any of their shit up.
Fucked up light bulbs aren't the answer
Fuck off
Two of many examples...CO2 capture and batteries. CO2 capture is a technology the govt spends a ton of money on and it trying to push via CO2 credits. Does it make sense to spend more than 1/3 of the power output of an electrical plant to "capture" the CO2 and pump it really far into the ground? That means you burn up 1/3 more hydrocarbons, and have to build 1/3 more power plants. FS. As for batteries, its the new "environmental car", but if you look at the overall energy efficiency vs. gasoline it can't come close to matching it (and doesn't even match the carbon efficiency in most places...), and on top of that you start manufacturing a boatload of batteries that have all sorts of toxic chemicals in them. FS.
Both "solutions" resulting in a "cleaner environment" and both FS...
Now that I'm done giving you shit. The reality is, we (everyone, not just America) need to clean up our act. I wish we'd push China and India to clean their shit because that's where a ton of the emissions originate. Not to mention the other pollution there.
Either way, it's silly to give in to corporate wishes to pollute as much as they want. -
Yeah.RaceBannon said:We shouldn't listen to anyone until they can tell what man's role is and what if anything would actually make a difference and what it would involve cost wise.
Until then it's all bullshit and no one wants to give any of their shit up.
Fucked up light bulbs aren't the answer
Fuck off
I'm going to need you to predict the weather more than 3 days out before I believe your 50 year prediction.
Turns out, weather is pretty complex.
-
Learn the difference between climate and weather.dflea said:
Yeah.RaceBannon said:We shouldn't listen to anyone until they can tell what man's role is and what if anything would actually make a difference and what it would involve cost wise.
Until then it's all bullshit and no one wants to give any of their shit up.
Fucked up light bulbs aren't the answer
Fuck off
I'm going to need you to predict the weather more than 3 days out before I believe your 50 year prediction.
Turns out, weather is pretty complex. -
The weather is a function of the same system that drives the climate, you fuckin twat. If the system was predictable, the weather wsould be, too.
Shut your cunt. -
You mad bro?dflea said:The weather is a function of the same system that drives the climate, you fuckin twat. If the system was predictable, the weather wsould be, too.
Shut your cunt. -
You're too stupid to post here. I didn't say right or wrong. I said what effect and what is the cost to make a difference.2001400ex said:
Even if the vast majority of everyone who actually studies this for a living is wrong (cause clearly you are smarter than then). The worst case scenario is we have a cleaner environment. I think it's a win win. But you too busy slurping on Republican nut sack.RaceBannon said:We shouldn't listen to anyone until they can tell what man's role is and what if anything would actually make a difference and what it would involve cost wise.
Until then it's all bullshit and no one wants to give any of their shit up.
Fucked up light bulbs aren't the answer
Fuck off
Of course you don't address that. You cant. No one has. The only one parroting a party line is you.
The worst case scenario is a bunch of stupid laws that punish the poor and middle so your rich masters can tell people how to live when they have no intent to practice what they preach.
We have the cleanest environment. And a great way of life. And a bunch of jackasses claiming the sky is falling
Put up or shut up. Specifics.
You won't even give up your ATV but you're happy to tell others how to live
Fuck off -
Because China gives a fuck what the western world has to say. They are too busy bathing themselves in our debt to give a shit.2001400ex said:
Gas is the most efficient so we shouldn't look for alternatives. Great thinking there genius. What do you think about ethanol, otherwise known as the plan the conservatives pushed when they were in power. That worked out well,, right?HoustonHusky said:
Sounds grand, but FS...although not as FS as your lame 'I Love Lamp' equivalent you ended the Antarctica thread with (or pretty much anything you typed in that thread...)2001400ex said:
Even if the vast majority of everyone who actually studies this for a living is wrong (cause clearly you are smarter than then). The worst case scenario is we have a cleaner environment. I think it's a win win. But you too busy slurping on Republican nut sack.RaceBannon said:We shouldn't listen to anyone until they can tell what man's role is and what if anything would actually make a difference and what it would involve cost wise.
Until then it's all bullshit and no one wants to give any of their shit up.
Fucked up light bulbs aren't the answer
Fuck off
Two of many examples...CO2 capture and batteries. CO2 capture is a technology the govt spends a ton of money on and it trying to push via CO2 credits. Does it make sense to spend more than 1/3 of the power output of an electrical plant to "capture" the CO2 and pump it really far into the ground? That means you burn up 1/3 more hydrocarbons, and have to build 1/3 more power plants. FS. As for batteries, its the new "environmental car", but if you look at the overall energy efficiency vs. gasoline it can't come close to matching it (and doesn't even match the carbon efficiency in most places...), and on top of that you start manufacturing a boatload of batteries that have all sorts of toxic chemicals in them. FS.
Both "solutions" resulting in a "cleaner environment" and both FS...
Now that I'm done giving you shit. The reality is, we (everyone, not just America) need to clean up our act. I wish we'd push China and India to clean their shit because that's where a ton of the emissions originate. Not to mention the other pollution there.
Either way, it's silly to give in to corporate wishes to pollute as much as they want.
Walking through Calcutta is like tiptoeing a dog run that hasn't been poop scooped in 30 years. They don't give a shit either.
