Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 391

Thread: Odds That Global Warming [Climate Change] is Due to Natural Factors: Slim to None

  1. #41
    Moderator BSBH Prospect
    Puck Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    10,520
    Rep Power
    110
    I was just wondering in regards to global warming, and where the basis was for your point of view.
    Well written out, you should be fun in the political forums.

    As far as the "left" wing media, and academia, not so sure you can paint every thing in such a heavy cover.
    For every left wing liberal out there you say is distorting facts for their own agenda...
    There is a right wing conservative doing the same thing....only difference is the right wing carries all the power and financial on the subject

    I can't speak for everything, but I can tell you matter of fact, that there is a exponential increase in Co2 in the northern regions last 30 years.
    The upswing curves are somewhat alarming.

  2. #42
    getting ready for Montreal Midget Division
    fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Too far from MSG
    Posts
    3,753
    Rep Power
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by RangersRule2 View Post
    There is no PROVEN side either way. I believe the evidence lies AGAINST MMGW. I don't claim it's a certitude.

    The agenda of the pro-MMGW crowd is clear. Ideologically, they control the media, the scientific organizations, the journals, and academia. You and I both know that the leftist skew in these circles is probably 10:1 in favor of MMGW.

    As an amateur scientist who has lectured on scientific topics and sees how things are treated in the media/press/academia, I can say with absolute certainty that if an article DID PROVE that MMGW wasn't true, it would not be published in an academic journal. This is related to the ClimateGate emails and the current lawsuit against National Review and Mark Steyn.

    I am all for debate and am not closed to the possibility of man affecting the climate, though I think it is infentissimally small (a single volcano throws out more pollution than 400 power plants produce in a year). Beyond that, most of the advocates of MMGW want to impose costs on the economy that will NOT be borne by them.

    I would be most interested to see what the advocates of MMGW/climate change would say if THEY had to pay for the costs with their salaries, jobs, and financial assets.
    Your bolded comment shows either an ignorance or a misunderstanding of the peer-review process. Peers review submitted manuscripts to examine the quality of the research and the strength of evidence to determine whether it should be published. Scientists get most excited when there is a novel study and/or experiment that appears to contradict existing dogma - because they are always interested in developing a better understanding of natural phenomena. Scientists would prefer that we're not going through an extinction crisis, that we're not raising carbon dioxide levels in the air, that we're not seeing temperatures rise, that we're not seeing glaciers melt and sea levels rise, that we're not the cause of dramatic changes to natural systems. But the evidence shows (overwhelmingly, and from multiple lines) that humans are causing tremendous changes to this planet. But scientists also suggest alternative paths for actions to slow and minimize the changes, and attempt to provide solutions to the problems. Ignoring the problems or saying they don't exist is counterproductive.

    More efficient use of natural resources, conserving energy, and encouraging use of renewable over non-renewable resources not only help the natural world, they help make businesses more profitable.
    "We're all f*cked. It helps to remember that." - George Carlin

    "How many Cups you've got?" - Esa Tikkanen

    "Hatred can keep you warm when you run out of liquor" - Ray Ratto, Dan Patrick show 1/20/2017

  3. #43
    Former Moderator BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    74,851
    Rep Power
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by fletch View Post
    Your bolded comment shows either an ignorance or a misunderstanding of the peer-review process. Peers review submitted manuscripts to examine the quality of the research and the strength of evidence to determine whether it should be published. Scientists get most excited when there is a novel study and/or experiment that appears to contradict existing dogma - because they are always interested in developing a better understanding of natural phenomena. Scientists would prefer that we're not going through an extinction crisis, that we're not raising carbon dioxide levels in the air, that we're not seeing temperatures rise, that we're not seeing glaciers melt and sea levels rise, that we're not the cause of dramatic changes to natural systems. But the evidence shows (overwhelmingly, and from multiple lines) that humans are causing tremendous changes to this planet. But scientists also suggest alternative paths for actions to slow and minimize the changes, and attempt to provide solutions to the problems. Ignoring the problems or saying they don't exist is counterproductive.

    More efficient use of natural resources, conserving energy, and encouraging use of renewable over non-renewable resources not only help the natural world, they help make businesses more profitable.
    And population limits...

  4. #44
    Sighing Dutchman BSBH Prospect
    Jules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Posts
    19,057
    Rep Power
    125
    I see we've returned to the argument where the vast majority of the world's scientific community is actually conspiring to make money and somehow big oil companies and politicians are better informed on the subject the scientists and surely not arguing in favor of their own bank account whatsoever.

    Yeah.
    Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
    Hidden Content

  5. #45
    Senior Member Bantam Division RangersRule2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,178
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Puck Head View Post
    As far as the "left" wing media, and academia, not so sure you can paint every thing in such a heavy cover.
    Yes I can.....by about a 10:1 margin, the Left controls the media, academia, and most high-income, communication-oriented professions. It's not even close.

    A simple demographic analysis of the employment practices of the Upper East and West Sides of Manhattan would show this to be the case. It's an open-and-shut case, like a racial analysis of the NFL and NBA.

    For every left wing liberal out there you say is distorting facts for their own agenda...There is a right wing conservative doing the same thing....only difference is the right wing carries all the power and financial on the subject
    Nonsense....despite the biased reporting you receive from the media elite, the Left receives plenty of financial support. It all flows from the fact that The Rich are a Democratic and left-leaning voting bloc, despite the nonsense you hear from the media about how the GOP is the Party of The Rich.

    By a 2:1 margin, those with a net worth over $30 MM support the Democratic Party over the GOP. You just won't hear this talked about in the media because it blows one of their main lines of attack against the GOP to smithereens.

    I can't speak for everything, but I can tell you matter of fact, that there is a exponential increase in Co2 in the northern regions last 30 years. The upswing curves are somewhat alarming.
    From who ? China and other countries are not going to stop modernizing. China is putting in a new coal plant every week.

  6. #46
    Former Moderator BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    74,851
    Rep Power
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by RangersRule2 View Post
    Yes I can.....by about a 10:1 margin, the Left controls the media, academia, and most high-income, communication-oriented professions. It's not even close.

    A simple demographic analysis of the employment practices of the Upper East and West Sides of Manhattan would show this to be the case. It's an open-and-shut case, like a racial analysis of the NFL and NBA.



    Nonsense....despite the biased reporting you receive from the media elite, the Left receives plenty of financial support. It all flows from the fact that The Rich are a Democratic and left-leaning voting bloc, despite the nonsense you hear from the media about how the GOP is the Party of The Rich.

    By a 2:1 margin, those with a net worth over $30 MM support the Democratic Party over the GOP. You just won't hear this talked about in the media because it blows one of their main lines of attack against the GOP to smithereens.



    From who ? China and other countries are not going to stop modernizing. China is putting in a new coal plant every week.
    First and foremost, please do not directly reply to other people's arguments "nonsense".

    Secondly, if you choose to use these statistical ratios, you will have to post a source that supports them.

  7. #47
    Senior Member Bantam Division RangersRule2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,178
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by fletch View Post
    Your bolded comment shows either an ignorance or a misunderstanding of the peer-review process. Peers review submitted manuscripts to examine the quality of the research and the strength of evidence to determine whether it should be published. Scientists get most excited when there is a novel study and/or experiment that appears to contradict existing dogma - because they are always interested in developing a better understanding of natural phenomena. Scientists would prefer that we're not going through an extinction crisis, that we're not raising carbon dioxide levels in the air, that we're not seeing temperatures rise, that we're not seeing glaciers melt and sea levels rise, that we're not the cause of dramatic changes to natural systems. But the evidence shows (overwhelmingly, and from multiple lines) that humans are causing tremendous changes to this planet. But scientists also suggest alternative paths for actions to slow and minimize the changes, and attempt to provide solutions to the problems. Ignoring the problems or saying they don't exist is counterproductive.
    Have you ever submitted an actual academic article ? I have. I spent dozens (hundreds ? ) of hours doing the work....preparing the data....organizing the text...proofing and writing and re-writing.....then, all your work goes to 2 or 3 people who make a guestimate on whether it's suitable for publication.

    Mine wasn't.

    Time went by, and I was proven right. My thesis proved out. There was no retroactive publication...no apology....no nothing.

    It's entirely political and this was for a financial/investing publication.

    More efficient use of natural resources, conserving energy, and encouraging use of renewable over non-renewable resources not only help the natural world, they help make businesses more profitable.
    Maybe SOME businesses -- Tesla -- but at what cost to existing businesses ? Yes, I did read that solar grid parity may be here in a few years and that the annual subsidies for solar are a fraction compared to the total costs of oil/gas extraction. But solar is still a niche product and we don't heat most houses or run any cars on solar power.

  8. #48
    Senior Member Bantam Division RangersRule2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,178
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    First and foremost, please do not directly reply to other people's arguments "nonsense". Secondly, if you choose to use these statistical ratios, you will have to post a source that supports them.
    My use of the word 'nonsense' is analagous to the term 'baloney.' I was refuting his assertions, not attacking him.

    As for the ratios, they all flow from the seminal 1980 Lichtman-Rothberg (sp.?) study on voting practices of the media elite, and showed that about 90% supported Democratic and liberal causes as opposed to Republican and conservative ones. Their voting habits similarly skewed to the former.

  9. #49
    The Dolphin Whisperer BSBH Rookie
    Morphinity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    28,085
    Rep Power
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by RangersRule2 View Post
    Have you ever submitted an actual academic article ? I have. I spent dozens (hundreds ? ) of hours doing the work....preparing the data....organizing the text...proofing and writing and re-writing.....then, all your work goes to 2 or 3 people who make a guestimate on whether it's suitable for publication.

    Mine wasn't.

    Time went by, and I was proven right. My thesis proved out. There was no retroactive publication...no apology....no nothing.

    It's entirely political and this was for a financial/investing publication.
    You sound jaded by the process, and it's really hard to take you seriously because you talk like you have a vendetta.

  10. #50
    Senior Member Bantam Division RangersRule2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,178
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    And population limits...
    How are we going to stop moderanization of 3 billion people ? We can't....it's not a question of population growth, it's population that wants to emerge from the 15th Century.

  11. #51
    Former Moderator BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    74,851
    Rep Power
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by RangersRule2 View Post
    My use of the word 'nonsense' is analagous to the term 'baloney.' I was refuting his assertions, not attacking him.

    As for the ratios, they all flow from the seminal 1980 Lichtman-Rothberg (sp.?) study on voting practices of the media elite, and showed that about 90% supported Democratic and liberal causes as opposed to Republican and conservative ones. Their voting habits similarly skewed to the former.
    Which you've already been told isn't acceptable.

    1980 was 34 years ago. Please post relevant and timely support for your statistics. I'd also suggest reading this thread before continuing to post in this Political Section. http://www.blueshirtsbrotherhood.com...ough-MUST-READ

  12. #52
    Senior Member Bantam Division RangersRule2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,178
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Morphinity View Post
    You sound jaded by the process, and it's really hard to take you seriously because you talk like you have a vendetta.
    Not at all.....you're reading too much into my words.....I've seen how things work behind-the-scenes and talked to key decision makers. I don't need to see a 3-minute segment on CNN or FoxNews to see how it works.

    Most of the information that you receive on key issues is already filtered and distorted, that's the point I am making. I'm trying to make you guys aware of that.

    Take the obsession with the CITIZENS UNITED case allowing corporations to give $$$ to campaigns. The Left hates the decision with a passion (I don't know why, Obama raised more money than Romney). But all the decision did was equalize the playing field. Corporations that were MEDIA-oriented -- i.e., The New York Times Company -- could already give in-kind $$$ to their favorite causes and candidates. Now, others can, too.

    What The Left wants is to have only The Times speak out but not ExxonMobil or the Koch Brothers.

    Would The Times let Exxon or the Koch Brothers have a say on what is said in their Editorial Page ? I don't think so...so why should The Times have a say on what they contribute to or speak out on ?

    See my point ?

  13. #53
    Senior Member Bantam Division RangersRule2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,178
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    Which you've already been told isn't acceptable.

    1980 was 34 years ago. Please post relevant and timely support for your statistics. I'd also suggest reading this thread before continuing to post in this Political Section. http://www.blueshirtsbrotherhood.com...ough-MUST-READ
    OK, I'll read this NOW and then give you guys some links. Give me a few hours, got some work to do.

  14. #54
    Sighing Dutchman BSBH Prospect
    Jules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Posts
    19,057
    Rep Power
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by RangersRule2 View Post
    Have you ever submitted an actual academic article ? I have. I spent dozens (hundreds ? ) of hours doing the work....preparing the data....organizing the text...proofing and writing and re-writing.....then, all your work goes to 2 or 3 people who make a guestimate on whether it's suitable for publication.

    Mine wasn't.

    Time went by, and I was proven right. My thesis proved out. There was no retroactive publication...no apology....no nothing.

    It's entirely political and this was for a financial/investing publication.
    Suitability for publication is not an indication of whether your research was correct or not. If you are as familiar with academia and how it works as you claim to be, you should know that.
    Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
    Hidden Content

  15. #55
    Senior Member Bantam Division RangersRule2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,178
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Morphinity View Post
    You sound jaded by the process, and it's really hard to take you seriously because you talk like you have a vendetta.
    I learned alot about the submission process. I spoke to the Journal's editor-in-chief (we went a few rounds ). I saw how even a non-political Journal was very political.

    It was very eye-opening. I would still do the 2 articles again today, even though I realized I have no chance of getting published.

  16. #56
    Senior Member Bantam Division RangersRule2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,178
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Jules View Post
    Suitability for publication is not an indication of whether your research was correct or not. If you are as familiar with academia and how it works as you claim to be, you should know that.
    Well, I know it now. My point was that even a non-political article was very politicized. And even though I was subsequently proven right, I couldn't get the article published OR get the reviewers removed from passing judgement on other articles.

    Some of the people were quite honest in admitting that my article would go against their beliefs/practices and maybe cost them $$$. Others just lied through their teeth.

    Like I said...it was like being able to eavesdrop on folks making a decision on admitting you to a college or hiring you for a job. Very informative and eye-opening.

  17. #57
    Former Moderator BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    74,851
    Rep Power
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by RangersRule2 View Post
    OK, I'll read this NOW and then give you guys some links. Give me a few hours, got some work to do.
    OK, thanks.

  18. #58
    Sighing Dutchman BSBH Prospect
    Jules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Posts
    19,057
    Rep Power
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by RangersRule2 View Post
    Well, I know it now. My point was that even a non-political article was very politicized. And even though I was subsequently proven right, I couldn't get the article published OR get the reviewers removed from passing judgement on other articles.
    You seem to be arguing that because you were right, it should've been publicized. That's not how it works. You can be right and still write an article that isn't suitable for publication in that particular journal or in any journal.
    Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
    Hidden Content

  19. #59
    The Dolphin Whisperer BSBH Rookie
    Morphinity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    28,085
    Rep Power
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by RangersRule2 View Post
    Not at all.....you're reading too much into my words.....I've seen how things work behind-the-scenes and talked to key decision makers. I don't need to see a 3-minute segment on CNN or FoxNews to see how it works.

    Most of the information that you receive on key issues is already filtered and distorted, that's the point I am making. I'm trying to make you guys aware of that.

    Take the obsession with the CITIZENS UNITED case allowing corporations to give $$$ to campaigns. The Left hates the decision with a passion (I don't know why, Obama raised more money than Romney). But all the decision did was equalize the playing field. Corporations that were MEDIA-oriented -- i.e., The New York Times Company -- could already give in-kind $$$ to their favorite causes and candidates. Now, others can, too.

    What The Left wants is to have only The Times speak out but not ExxonMobil or the Koch Brothers.

    Would The Times let Exxon or the Koch Brothers have a say on what is said in their Editorial Page ? I don't think so...so why should The Times have a say on what they contribute to or speak out on ?

    See my point ?
    No, I don't see your point.

    You're talking about the NY Times, and I'm talking about scientific articles, papers, and journals that are fundamentally different than newspapers. Scientific journals are not "media", they're peer-reviewed databases of discoveries and research that, themselves, are also peer-reviewed.

    Now, you may think that all of the scientists are wrong and out to get you, and you hold the right to have that opinion. But just know that it's a very unpopular one, and you spewing about conspiracy theories of "the left", the media, socialists, liberals, etc aren't helping your credibility. Also, you completely ignoring my requests to post SOURCES don't help either.

    I don't care how much text you have in bold, italics, or underlined. Your points are moot until you provide proof and stop passing off your theories of media and scientific subversion as a fact.

  20. #60
    Senior Member Bantam Division RangersRule2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,178
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Jules View Post
    You seem to be arguing that because you were right, it should've been publicized. That's not how it works. You can be right and still write an article that isn't suitable for publication in that particular journal or in any journal.
    I agree.....but the rejection was based on substance not style. Though I disagreed with the style content requirements, too.

    The majority of investment professionals for the Journal in question want real-world usability, not complex theoretical papers with lots of numbers and forumlas that don't help them or their clients make money. My articles were more everyday-practicality. But the primary reason for the rejection was a disbelief my thesis would turn out to be correct (on the Tech Bubble).

    Again, it's not that I was rejected or the reasons for it....it's that the process was controlled by a small number of individuals (2-3 reviewers).....with a total reviewing body of 20-30......for a membership that is probably about 100,000.

    So 100,000 people never saw my work -- even though most probably wanted to -- because a few people decided THEY didn't want it shown. And the people in charge freely admitted they wanted the Journal to be of a certain type for prestiguous professional awards, not the membership.

    So the members be damned, we're running it for outsiders.

    That's my point: selective decision-making for a goal that is not what the rank-and-file wanted.

Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •