Shell made a film about climate change in 1991 (then neglected to heed its own warning)

[Sapper Woody]

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.

That was exactly my point earlier. Of people who think that man can cause global warming, 97.1% of them say that man is. 66.4% of abstracts that addressed global warming did not take a position on AGW. So, in reality, we have 66.4% dissention.

Let me break it down this way. Let's say we surveyed papers on Donald Trump. 66.4% did not mention "Donald Trump is evil". Of the rest, 97% of those thought he was evil. It's not fair to say that 97% of scientists believe that Donald Trump is evil.

What they are doing is discounting everyone who wrote about global warming who had no reason to write that man was the cause. So, like I said earlier, they're saying "Of the scientists who think that man can cause global warming, 97% think we are." That's not scientific, it's not mathematic. It's pure manipulation by throwing out any dissention as outliers.

What we really have is 32.6% of people who discuss global warming think man is the cause. A far cry from the 97% touted by some. It's less than 1/3 rather than the almost 100% people say it is. Far from "settled science".

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Reynolds]

I'm quoting experts. You're making nonsensical statements.

Same fools who say "There is no God."?

 

[Reynolds]

It can be in a way - IF the reporter is reputable

None are reputable.

 

[FollowTheWay]

That was exactly my point earlier. Of people who think that man can cause global warming, 97.1% of them say that man is. 66.4% of abstracts that addressed global warming did not take a position on AGW. So, in reality, we have 66.4% dissention.

Let me break it down this way. Let's say we surveyed papers on Donald Trump. 66.4% did not mention "Donald Trump is evil". Of the rest, 97% of those thought he was evil. It's not fair to say that 97% of scientists believe that Donald Trump is evil.

What they are doing is discounting everyone who wrote about global warming who had no reason to write that man was the cause. So, like I said earlier, they're saying "Of the scientists who think that man can cause global warming, 97% think we are." That's not scientific, it's not mathematic. It's pure manipulation by throwing out any dissention as outliers.

What we really have is 32.6% of people who discuss global warming think man is the cause. A far cry from the 97% touted by some. It's less than 1/3 rather than the almost 100% people say it is. Far from "settled science".

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

The proper interpretation is of those papers which expressed any position at all, for or against the effect of human activity on global warming, 97% said that human activity impacts global warming. This is a set of all peer-reviewed papers by climate experts. Let's compare this to predictions about the Clemson-Syracuse game last week. What you're arguing is something like this. Because 60% of all sportcasters' articles on Thurs.didn't mention that game but talked about other games then the 40% who did look at that game with 95% predicting a Clemson win over Syracuse was not an important figure. Man-caused global waqrming was not the topic in those other papers and was not even mentioned in the abstract.

 

[FollowTheWay]

None are reputable.

Prove that statement.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Same fools who say "There is no God."?

So we didn't need Thomas Edison to invent the light bulb or Shockley of Bell Labs to invent the transistor? NASA's efforts to put a man in space and land one on the moon weren't required. God wanted us to not have those scientific advancements? He preferred that children die of polio or smallpox without the inventions of vaccines to prevent those diseases? If that's your position I can only say [personal attack edited] and will stop debating this issue. Go back to the Dark Ages.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Well we’re all pretty stoked to see you no longer debate the issue. But you got some mighty this skin.

 

[Reynolds]

So we didn't need Thomas Edison to invent the light bulb or Shockley of Bell Labs to invent the transistor? NASA's efforts to put a man in space and land one on the moon weren't required. God wanted us to not have those scientific advancements? He preferred that children die of polio or smallpox without the inventions of vaccines to prevent those diseases? If that's your position I can only say [personal attack edited] and will stop debating this issue. Go back to the Dark Ages.

I simply said most scientists are fools. A man who does not believe in God is a fool. You can apply that as you see fit.

 

[Reynolds]

Prove that statement.

The current climate has made all news sources questionable. No confidential source should be considered reputable.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

, in the Trump tradition, you make pronouncements about things which run counter to the conclusions reached by almost all (I think 95%) of the climate scientific experts and the judgement of all of the countries of the world except for Syria. We have bought into this anti-science lie to the extent that's where we stand now, right with Syria as the only two nations who have not ratified the Paris agreement.

Greetings FollowTheWay:

Dont think I have ever had a conversation with you, and I hope you don't mind a Liberal chiming in on this topic.

Have you ever noticed that the proponents of global warming have an agenda associated with it? Pickens spent a lot of money to demonize oil (and to a lesser extent, coal), and touted natural gas. Did you know that Pickens has VAST natual gas holdings?

How about Al Gore? How fortuitous that Mr. Gore - our former Vice President and a vocal proponent of global warming - was a co-owner of a carbon exchange? Follow this link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/#4ac8320c32dc

Just for fun: pull out your copy of An Inconvenient Truth, and take note of his predictions. How many of them have materialized?

Perhaps I am getting cynical in my old age, but I really have a hard time with this. Don't get me wrong: I bought into "global warming," then "global climate change" when the narrative seemingly didn't correlate with the science. And now I feel as if I was duped.

Regards, hope all is well,
BiR

 

[FollowTheWay]

Greetings FollowTheWay:

Dont think I have ever had a conversation with you, and I hope you don't mind a Liberal chiming in on this topic.

Have you ever noticed that the proponents of global warming have an agenda associated with it? Pickens spent a lot of money to demonize oil (and to a lesser extent, coal), and touted natural gas. Did you know that Pickens has VAST natual gas holdings?

How about Al Gore? How fortuitous that Mr. Gore - our former Vice President and a vocal proponent of global warming - was a co-owner of a carbon exchange? Follow this link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/#4ac8320c32dc

Just for fun: pull out your copy of An Inconvenient Truth, and take note of his predictions. How many of them have materialized?

Perhaps I am getting cynical in my old age, but I really have a hard time with this. Don't get me wrong: I bought into "global warming," then "global climate change" when the narrative seemingly didn't correlate with the science. And now I feel as if I was duped.

Regards, hope all is well,
BiR

Well, you weren't duped with regard to the science. As I've shown, the scientific community and almost every other country in the world accept the theory that man has had an influence on global warming.

The one question I always like to naysayers is: Have you ever been to LA on a really bad day for smog? Cutting emissions would be the right thing to do just to improve the quality of the air we breathe. Improving global warming comes as icing on the cake. People resist this out of purely political motives. Another thing I believe is that people calling themselves Christians should want to preserve the environment. In what way is trashing God's creation the Christian thing to do. He created the universe and gave man dominion over it. I think that comes with the responsibility to preserve it.

 

[Reynolds]

Well, you weren't duped with regard to the science. As I've shown, the scientific community and almost every other country in the world accept the theory that man has had an influence on global warming.

The one question I always like to naysayers is: Have you ever been to LA on a really bad day for smog? Cutting emissions would be the right thing to do just to improve the quality of the air we breathe. Improving global warming comes as icing on the cake. People resist this out of purely political motives. Another thing I believe is that people calling themselves Christians should want to preserve the environment. In what way is trashing God's creation the Christian thing to do. He created the universe and gave man dominion over it. I think that comes with the responsibility to preserve it.

I am an environmentalist. I love nature and spend considerable time in it. I spend countless hours in the woods and on the lake. I personally do not think man is causing climate change. I do think we should be as clean as possible. I also understand that the entire world has to do it. As long as China, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, N. Korea, etc are burning coal in Un-scrubbed generators; nothing we do here is going to matter. If they burn cheap and dirty and we burn clean and expensive, the air will still be dirty and our economy will get screwed.

 

[Covenanter]

What percentage of scientists in the 70's said we were headed for an ice age?

I remember it well - I still have the book (somewhere) - "The Weather Machine & the Threat of Ice"

Fascinating that he discusses the advancing ice & finally suggests that human activity using carbon fuels could offset the predicted cooling.

 

[FollowTheWay]

I am an environmentalist. I love nature and spend considerable time in it. I spend countless hours in the woods and on the lake. I personally do not think man is causing climate change. I do think we should be as clean as possible. I also understand that the entire world has to do it. As long as China, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, N. Korea, etc are burning coal in Un-scrubbed generators; nothing we do here is going to matter. If they burn cheap and dirty and we burn clean and expensive, the air will still be dirty and our economy will get screwed.

I love the mountains at this time of year. When I lived in NJ I used to take what I called a "Fall Trip." The first one was right after I went to work in the NE with some friends from rad school CA. We drove through upstate NY and western MA into Vermont and then stayed in the White Mountains in NH. Wow, that was beautiful! We hiked in the mountains and then at the end of the day run 5 miles. Those were the days. We came back down the coast of Maine from Bar Harbor to CONN and NYC spending a night in Boston. I did that a number of times later but got into flying to Portland Maine and renting a car. I'll never forget lying on my back in Arcadia National Park and looking at the stars. The only better view of the stars I've had was in the Nevada desert. Another great trip was driving from Kalispell, Mont through Glacier National Park and north to Banff, Lake Louise and Jasper. The beauty of the world always reminds me of the greatness of our God.

 

[Reynolds]

I love the mountains at this time of year. When I lived in NJ I used to take what I called a "Fall Trip." The first one was right after I went to work in the NE with some friends from rad school CA. We drove through upstate NY and western MA into Vermont and then stayed in the White Mountains in NH. Wow, that was beautiful! We hiked in the mountains and then at the end of the day run 5 miles. Those were the days. We came back down the coast of Maine from Bar Harbor to CONN and NYC spending a night in Boston. I did that a number of times later but got into flying to Portland Maine and renting a car. I'll never forget lying on my back in Arcadia National Park and looking at the stars. The only better view of the stars I've had was in the Nevada desert. Another great trip was driving from Kalispell, Mont through Glacier National Park and north to Banff, Lake Louise and Jasper. The beauty of the world always reminds me of the greatness of our God.

At one time I intended to hike the entire Appalachian Trail. "Life" got in the way. Its still kind of on the bucket list.

 

[FollowTheWay]

At one time I intended to hike the entire Appalachian Trail. "Life" got in the way. Its still kind of on the bucket list.

I used to camp where the Appalachian Trail met the Delaware River as well as in Yosemite, the Smokies and the Shenandoah Valley. Did some white water rafting and canoeing and a bit of fishing especially with my Grandfather. I was out in the middle of the Ohio River at Louisville once in a four man rubber raft with my girlfriend when on of the oars broke. I looked up and the Belle of Louisville was headed right at us. I knew I could swim to shore but also knew that she couldn't. She started screaming and a kindly fisherman threw us a rope and pulled us out of the way. I really only did day hikes. Hiking the entire trail would be a highlight of anybody's life. I understand the cost of complying with environmental rules but consider these kind of experiences invaluable. America's National Parks are our treasures and I hate to see them polluted. That's one of the reasons why I really look forward to green alternatives which are cost effective like solar, wind and geothermal energy not to mention more esoteric forms now being researched.

 

[Covenanter]

I remember it well - back in the 1970s - I read an article about a school doing experiments on the interaction of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) with ozone - back in the days when when everything was in aerosols form. They were agreeing with this article.

At a conference I asked the speaker from Shell about the reports that increase use of CFCs would destroy the ozone layer & harm the environment. The speaker rejected the idea - "If anyone knows about such dangers, it will be Shell."

When they were becoming concerned it was revealed that satellite data measurements of ozone had been rejected because they were too low but the data was retained & rechecked & established that the dangers were evident during the previous 10 years.

 

[Covenanter]

What have GM crops & pesticides done to our insect life - & bird life.

Not so long ago a drive in the country resulted in my car being smothered with dead insects;
the 'butterfly bush' in our garden used to be covered in butterflies & bees;
every housetop had its blackbird singing to ascertain nearby rivals, & I could echo their whistle & get a conversation going;
I can't remember when I last saw a sparrow in our garden;

Victory for Monsanto in its campaign to destroy nature & make us all dependent on chemicals.

 

[Reynolds]

I agree. I think we need to bring alternative energy sources into the grid as they become cost effective. Solar is now becoming cost effective, nut for the last 30 years it was simply a waste of money and resources.

 

[Revmitchell]

I like my oil