Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:57 am

huntmmup wrote:SpinnerMan instead of sounding stupid, why not learn a little about science?
I'll work on that. :rolleyes:

huntmmup wrote:They do not agree on the very complicated scientific models used to predict what will happen

And isn't that the only damn thing that matters :fingerhead:

Did you have a sense of irony as you posted this sentence in your thread that is basically intended to argue that there is no disagreement among scientists or at least the "right" scientists?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15810
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL


Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri Apr 25, 2014 11:18 am

Nabs wrote:They came "Oh so close" to matching Kim Jong Il's perfect election results, how could you argue against anything so perfectly accepted. .

That Kim Jong election was amazing! 100%! And it's supposed to go even higher when they get the last of the absentee ballots! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10683
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby huntmmup » Fri Apr 25, 2014 12:03 pm

SpinnerMan you really have a hard time understanding things dont you? The article and statement I posted say that 9,136 out 9,137 authors of peer reviewed articles on global warming is real and manmade.

Nowhere did the article or I say that they agreed on models, that is your misunderstanding or lack of reading.
Last edited by huntmmup on Fri Apr 25, 2014 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
huntmmup
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby huntmmup » Fri Apr 25, 2014 12:05 pm

ScaupHunter wow, so all of you have fancy degrees. Congratulations you must feel good about yourself.

So, do less than 99% of special people with PhDs in nuclear believe that radioactive elements decay?
huntmmup
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Rat Creek » Fri Apr 25, 2014 12:10 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
Nabs wrote:They came "Oh so close" to matching Kim Jong Il's perfect election results, how could you argue against anything so perfectly accepted. .

That Kim Jong election was amazing! 100%! And it's supposed to go even higher when they get the last of the absentee ballots! :lol3:


And 99.99% of North Korean officials agree the result was fair and without coercion. So the science of elections is settled. :yes:

Oh, the one denier??? He is no longer with us. :eek:

On the orders of Kim Jong-un to leave "no trace of him behind, down to his hair," according to South Korean media,


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/9630509/North-Korean-army-minister-executed-with-mortar-round.html

Yes, I know this is not related to the election, but would no doubt have a chilling effect on any dissent. :fingerhead:
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri Apr 25, 2014 12:14 pm

Rat Creek wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
Nabs wrote:They came "Oh so close" to matching Kim Jong Il's perfect election results, how could you argue against anything so perfectly accepted. .

That Kim Jong election was amazing! 100%! And it's supposed to go even higher when they get the last of the absentee ballots! :lol3:


And 99.99% of North Korean officials agree the result was fair and without coercion. So the science of elections is settled. :yes:

Oh, the one denier??? He is no longer with us. :eek:

On the orders of Kim Jong-un to leave "no trace of him behind, down to his hair," according to South Korean media,


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/9630509/North-Korean-army-minister-executed-with-mortar-round.html

Yes, I know this is not related to the election, but would no doubt have a chilling effect on any dissent. :fingerhead:

Boy howdy, RC. It'd make me pretty damned agreeable! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10683
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Apr 25, 2014 12:52 pm

huntmmup wrote:SpinnerMan you really have a hard time understanding things dont you? The article and statement I posted say that 9,136 out 9,137 authors of peer reviewed articles on global warming is real and manmade.

Nowhere did the article or I say that they agreed on models, that is your misunderstanding or lack of reading.

What you don't understand is that saying that is a meaningless triviality. I agree 100% that the earth is warmer than it otherwise would be if not for the higher CO2 level which is the result of human activity. I've argued with people that say otherwise, because they are wrong.

Now this is where we get into semantics.

If a person says there is no manmade global warming, do they mean that it is exactly 0.0000000000000000000000 C or do they mean that whatever there is it is so small it is secondary to so many other things that there is no practical difference from zero?

From YOUR link.
The tally for that search: Nearly 14,000 papers that supported human causes behind global warming (chiefly from burning fossil fuels over the past century), and just 24 that rejected human causes.

"And by reject, I mean they either flatly said global warming was wrong – which people say all the time in the press and in front of Congress – or they said there’s some other process that better explains the information," Powell said in an interview with weather.com.

BTW, that would be 14,000 to 24. That is 583 to 1.

He emphasizes that he was looking for the number of scientists who reject anthropogenic global warming – not how many accept it.
He is looking for a triviality as if that is the key issue. It is not. It is the magnitude and consequences of the higher CO2 levels and not just that the sign of the effect on temperature is positive, which it clearly is.

BTW, the 9,136 to 1 is a silly number.

Look carefully what it says.
Image
Even the ratio from the graph is 2,258 articles to 1 because each article had an average of 4 authors. More authors doesn't add more weight. I am coauthor on one peer-reviewed journal article that probably has 30 co-authors, nearly all of them grad students. Does that give it 30 times the weight of articles with 1 author. Deciding who to include as a co-author is an interesting thing that has a lot to do with the personality of the lead author(s). Some see it as a common courtesy to include a lot of people. I'm included in a few for that reason. They all look the same in the curriculum vitae.

BTW, I serious doubt that there have been 9,136 DIFFERENT authors of peer reviewed literature on the topic. So the same authors publishing over and over again on the same subject doesn't count either in this argument.

And who do you think the peers are that reviewed those 2259 articles? I'll give you a big hint. Probably ever last one of them was reviewed by on of the authors from one of the other articles in that set of 2258. Who else would review them? And that's one of the inherent problems. The editor of the journal picks the peers to review. It obviously has to be someone in the field and often someone he knows. You know how much you get paid to be a peer reviewer? The true minimum wage $0/hr. I've been peer reviewer on a fair number of articles and in most cases I knew at least some of the authors. The funniest one was when I reviewed a paper that was an extension of my work and they did it all wrong :lol3: They drew the wrong (or right) reviewer.

There is the danger of this becoming incestuous and self-reinforcing. Nobody trusts people to regulate themselves when they profit from their own decisions. That should apply to scientists as well. They are just humans like businessmen. They know where their bread is buttered and human nature still exists in them.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15810
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Apr 25, 2014 1:44 pm

huntmmup wrote:SpinnerMan instead of sounding stupid, why not learn a little about science? Read the article. All of those authors agree that the warming is caused primarily by man. They do not agree on the very complicated scientific models used to predict what will happen as we keep putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, thats what they are all studying and publishing articles about.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: .......says dhunt TO A SCIENTIST!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56181
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby boney fingers » Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:11 pm

huntmmup wrote:SpinnerMan you really have a hard time understanding things dont you? The article and statement I posted say that 9,136 out 9,137 authors of peer reviewed articles on global warming is real and manmade.

Nowhere did the article or I say that they agreed on models, that is your misunderstanding or lack of reading.


That's convincing, I wonder how they came down on acid rain, ozone depletion, spotted owl, the coming ice age, more and bigger storms, ethanol good, ethanol bad, eggs good, eggs bad, coffee good, coffee bad ect...
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 793
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:12 pm

boney fingers wrote:
huntmmup wrote:SpinnerMan you really have a hard time understanding things dont you? The article and statement I posted say that 9,136 out 9,137 authors of peer reviewed articles on global warming is real and manmade.

Nowhere did the article or I say that they agreed on models, that is your misunderstanding or lack of reading.


That's convincing, I wonder how they came down on acid rain, ozone depletion, spotted owl, the coming ice age, more and bigger storms, ethanol good, ethanol bad, eggs good, eggs bad, coffee good, coffee bad ect...

...and garlic..... :wink: :thumbsup:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56181
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:14 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
huntmmup wrote:SpinnerMan you really have a hard time understanding things dont you? The article and statement I posted say that 9,136 out 9,137 authors of peer reviewed articles on global warming is real and manmade.

Nowhere did the article or I say that they agreed on models, that is your misunderstanding or lack of reading.

What you don't understand is that saying that is a meaningless triviality. I agree 100% that the earth is warmer than it otherwise would be if not for the higher CO2 level which is the result of human activity. I've argued with people that say otherwise, because they are wrong.

Now this is where we get into semantics.

If a person says there is no manmade global warming, do they mean that it is exactly 0.0000000000000000000000 C or do they mean that whatever there is it is so small it is secondary to so many other things that there is no practical difference from zero?

From YOUR link.
The tally for that search: Nearly 14,000 papers that supported human causes behind global warming (chiefly from burning fossil fuels over the past century), and just 24 that rejected human causes.

"And by reject, I mean they either flatly said global warming was wrong – which people say all the time in the press and in front of Congress – or they said there’s some other process that better explains the information," Powell said in an interview with weather.com.

BTW, that would be 14,000 to 24. That is 583 to 1.

He emphasizes that he was looking for the number of scientists who reject anthropogenic global warming – not how many accept it.
He is looking for a triviality as if that is the key issue. It is not. It is the magnitude and consequences of the higher CO2 levels and not just that the sign of the effect on temperature is positive, which it clearly is.

BTW, the 9,136 to 1 is a silly number.

Look carefully what it says.
Image
Even the ratio from the graph is 2,258 articles to 1 because each article had an average of 4 authors. More authors doesn't add more weight. I am coauthor on one peer-reviewed journal article that probably has 30 co-authors, nearly all of them grad students. Does that give it 30 times the weight of articles with 1 author. Deciding who to include as a co-author is an interesting thing that has a lot to do with the personality of the lead author(s). Some see it as a common courtesy to include a lot of people. I'm included in a few for that reason. They all look the same in the curriculum vitae.

BTW, I serious doubt that there have been 9,136 DIFFERENT authors of peer reviewed literature on the topic. So the same authors publishing over and over again on the same subject doesn't count either in this argument.

And who do you think the peers are that reviewed those 2259 articles? I'll give you a big hint. Probably ever last one of them was reviewed by on of the authors from one of the other articles in that set of 2258. Who else would review them? And that's one of the inherent problems. The editor of the journal picks the peers to review. It obviously has to be someone in the field and often someone he knows. You know how much you get paid to be a peer reviewer? The true minimum wage $0/hr. I've been peer reviewer on a fair number of articles and in most cases I knew at least some of the authors. The funniest one was when I reviewed a paper that was an extension of my work and they did it all wrong :lol3: They drew the wrong (or right) reviewer.

There is the danger of this becoming incestuous and self-reinforcing. Nobody trusts people to regulate themselves when they profit from their own decisions. That should apply to scientists as well. They are just humans like businessmen. They know where their bread is buttered and human nature still exists in them.


Image
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56181
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:33 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
boney fingers wrote:
huntmmup wrote:SpinnerMan you really have a hard time understanding things dont you? The article and statement I posted say that 9,136 out 9,137 authors of peer reviewed articles on global warming is real and manmade.

Nowhere did the article or I say that they agreed on models, that is your misunderstanding or lack of reading.


That's convincing, I wonder how they came down on acid rain, ozone depletion, spotted owl, the coming ice age, more and bigger storms, ethanol good, ethanol bad, eggs good, eggs bad, coffee good, coffee bad ect...

...and garlic..... :wink: :thumbsup:

I don't care what you say, Inda....it does keep vampires away. I always have some nearby and have NEVER even seen a vampire!
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10683
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:37 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
boney fingers wrote:
huntmmup wrote:SpinnerMan you really have a hard time understanding things dont you? The article and statement I posted say that 9,136 out 9,137 authors of peer reviewed articles on global warming is real and manmade.

Nowhere did the article or I say that they agreed on models, that is your misunderstanding or lack of reading.


That's convincing, I wonder how they came down on acid rain, ozone depletion, spotted owl, the coming ice age, more and bigger storms, ethanol good, ethanol bad, eggs good, eggs bad, coffee good, coffee bad ect...

...and garlic..... :wink: :thumbsup:

I don't care what you say, Inda....it does keep vampires away. I always have some nearby and have NEVER even seen a vampire!

fun fact about garlic...
if you want sweet garlic, slice it with a sharp knife or leave it whole, then cook it. When you mince it in a garlic press or smash it, that is what causes the bite in garlic. Some kind of chemical reaction from what I understand. This is why some Italian recipes call for sliced or whole garlic. I love whole roasted garlic cloves in a marsala sauce. :thumbsup:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56181
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Duck_Stank » Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:47 pm

go get the bird wrote:You really are butthurt, aren't you?

:D:D:D:D
Master of Reality
User avatar
Duck_Stank
hunter
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:35 am
Location: Greenville, Pennsylvania

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby huntmmup » Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:05 pm

:lol3: 9,136 out of 9,137 of the PhDs who have published peer reviewed articles in the last year on climate change is "a meaningless triviality."

14,000 of 14,024 peer reviewed articles since 1991 is "a meaningless triviality"

You guys are such a joke with your fancy degrees and everything. Just because you have an engineering degree or nuclear degree makes you smarter than 9,136 of 9,137 PhD climatologists :hi:
huntmmup
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:20 pm

Indaswamp wrote: fun fact about garlic...
if you want sweet garlic, slice it with a sharp knife or leave it whole, then cook it. When you mince it in a garlic press or smash it, that is what causes the bite in garlic. Some kind of chemical reaction from what I understand. This is why some Italian recipes call for sliced or whole garlic. I love whole roasted garlic cloves in a marsala sauce. :thumbsup:

That's weird! You should open a restaurant, Inda! :thumbsup:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10683
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby go get the bird » Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:02 pm

huntmmup wrote::lol3: 9,136 out of 9,137 of the PhDs who have published peer reviewed articles in the last year on climate change is "a meaningless triviality."

14,000 of 14,024 peer reviewed articles since 1991 is "a meaningless triviality"

You guys are such a joke with your fancy degrees and everything. Just because you have an engineering degree or nuclear degree makes you smarter than 9,136 of 9,137 PhD climatologists :hi:


Spinner is likely the most educated person on this site, which clearly includes you.
MackieKnife wrote:The moral of the story is...I'm retarded.
User avatar
go get the bird
hunter
 
Posts: 3161
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:12 pm

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby go get the bird » Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:03 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
Indaswamp wrote: fun fact about garlic...
if you want sweet garlic, slice it with a sharp knife or leave it whole, then cook it. When you mince it in a garlic press or smash it, that is what causes the bite in garlic. Some kind of chemical reaction from what I understand. This is why some Italian recipes call for sliced or whole garlic. I love whole roasted garlic cloves in a marsala sauce. :thumbsup:

That's weird! You should open a restaurant, Inda! :thumbsup:

Pickled garlic slices are a-m-a-z-i-n-g. :beer:
MackieKnife wrote:The moral of the story is...I'm retarded.
User avatar
go get the bird
hunter
 
Posts: 3161
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:12 pm

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:16 pm

go get the bird wrote:Spinner is likely the most educated person on this site, which clearly includes you.
Yet I'm still wrong about things all the time. I was under the misconception that that ceased when I got my Ph.D. Too many forget it did not. I've learned that there was a lot more truth to the wisdom of my grandfather and his 8th grade education when he told me what my future degrees would mean.

B.S. - Bull$hit
M.S. More $hit
Ph.D. Piled Higher and Deeper

huntmmup wrote:You guys are such a joke with your fancy degrees and everything.
Unless you agree with them, then you will appeal to the authority of that fancy degree. Right?

I'm trying to help you understand a world you clearly do not understand.

The most critical part of science is to be critical, especially when you are seeing or being told what you want to be true. Why must scientists use double blind studies if they see the world without bias? We all have a tendency to see what we want to see even when it is not there. This has been proven true a million times in a million different ways. That is never more true than when the only people that do not see a particular thing are mocked and derided.

They'll learn to get on board sooner or later. Image

huntmmup wrote::lol3: 9,136 out of 9,137 of the PhDs who have published peer reviewed articles in the last year on climate change is "a meaningless triviality."

You do not have to have a Ph.D. to publish a peer reviewed article :fingerhead: I had quite a few peer-reviewed journal articles as a grad student before I got my Ph.D. Try to keep your statements truthful :tongue:

I seriously doubt that that was 9,137 different authors. Most researchers are authors on multiple papers, especially if they are a professor. The most I've been an author on in one year is 3 or 4 and I have never been a professor.

How may different authors? Image

You jump to conclusion way too quickly, when you do not understand. You want to make an appeal to authority on something that you clearly do not understand. I'm trying to inform you on the academic research world, something I have been part of now for two decades. My first peer-reviewed journal article was in 1995.

huntmmup wrote:14,000 of 14,024 peer reviewed articles since 1991 is "a meaningless triviality"

That is not what I am saying. The work of these researchers was not trivial, what the author of your link did was trivial. The point he makes is a trivial one. It's like saying all climatologists agree the earth is warmed by the sun. I'm sure all of them had that as part of their papers as well.

Each of those 14,024 article is focused on some specific item of interest to some researcher or group of researchers somewhere. They are not specifically researching whether the effective of CO2 is positive, negative, or zero. At least I hope not. They are doing something far more focused and specific. We know the sign is positive. We do not know the slope, the time lags, and so much more and that is where the research is. In case you have not followed, I AGREE MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL! That doesn't mean I have to agree with the way any particular idiot comes to that conclusion. If he looked at Tarot cards and came to the right conclusion, would that prove Tarot cards work?

A large fraction of these papers probably graduate students publishing their work so they can start building their resume with their thesis adviser and a few other colleagues included as authors on the paper.

Another large fraction is the result of government grants and the professors publishing the results of the research so they can continue getting more grants by padding the resume.

Ever hear the phrase publish or perish? It is quite relevant. Those that are good at it, get a lot of papers out of relatively small progress in their research. If you are a big shot in the field, few journals want to reject your papers, so they crank out the papers.

Another inherent bias in publishing papers is that when a research finds nothing, they do not publish that paper. A simple example, a research things giving XxYyZz chemical will cause cancer, so they give a bunch of mice a good dose of the chemical and then they compare it to the control group and find nothing. Do they go to the trouble of writing a paper? Unlikely.

Now given that everybody already "knows" the effects of more CO2, what value is there to publish a journal article if your research shows that there is little to no impact of CO2? Do you want to be that 2nd guy that gets mocked in your example? Or are you simply going to assume that you must be wrong and set about to "fix" your embedded assumptions so that your results correspond with what you already know to be true.

Where we all get wrapped around the axle is what people mean by manmade global warming?

The warmers seem to generally mean man has some effect, period. Most think it is probably really bad, but as long as they prove there is some effect, then they declare victory as if that proves something meaningful. It does not.

There are some in the warmer crowd that do mean waterworld is on the way and those are the people the deniers focus on to feel like they are right.

The denier seem to general mean that there is no definitive proof of catastrophic consequences and not that man has zero impact. After all, that is so blindingly obvious. So they declare victory. Most then take that to mean that quite bad results are out of the realm of possibility. It does not.

There are some deniers in the crowd that absolutely insist that more CO2 will have absolutely zero effect and those are the people the warmers focus on to feel like they are right.

As a result, nobody is talking about the same thing. In my never humble opinion, I think a large fraction of the people dug in on both sides are idiots. They see what they want to see and the believe what they want to believe and nothing will ever change their mind. They will never be skeptical of their own beliefs. It is a religion for the warmers and the deniers and all know data simply must be forced to fit their belief. Neither side is immune to this.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15810
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby go get the bird » Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:32 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
go get the bird wrote:Spinner is likely the most educated person on this site, which clearly includes you.
Yet I'm still wrong about things all the time. I was under the misconception that that ceased when I got my Ph.D. Too many forget it did not. I've learned that there was a lot more truth to the wisdom of my grandfather and his 8th grade education when he told me what my future degrees would mean.

B.S. - Bull$hit
M.S. More $hit
Ph.D. Piled Higher and Deeper


You are far more objective than most here, including myself. I'm sure that was not a trait you were born with. Rather, it was fostered and strengthened by your extensive education and experience.

Don't downplay the significance of what you've done. Most people will never know what it means to hold a Ph.D. :beer:
MackieKnife wrote:The moral of the story is...I'm retarded.
User avatar
go get the bird
hunter
 
Posts: 3161
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:12 pm

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:54 pm

While I agree with your post and admire a person who makes the effort to earn advanced degrees. Grandpa was still right in his assessment. Many PH.D.'s are properly placed in positions where they can do no harm to others! :lol3:
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6401
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:15 pm

huntmmup wrote::lol3: 9,136 out of 9,137 of the PhDs who have published peer reviewed articles in the last year on climate change is "a meaningless triviality."

14,000 of 14,024 peer reviewed articles since 1991 is "a meaningless triviality"

You guys are such a joke with your fancy degrees and everything. Just because you have an engineering degree or nuclear degree makes you smarter than 9,136 of 9,137 PhD climatologists :hi:

Maybe if you post that 1,954,829,857,398,443 more times, people will pay attention to it. BTW, everyone knows it's you dhunt. :hi:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56181
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:17 pm

FWIW, Galileo was correct, though everyone disagreed with him. Your lame appeals to authority are very boring.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56181
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:28 pm

BTW dhunt....
Image

:hi: :hi:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56181
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Global Warming: 9,136 vs. 1

Postby clampdaddy » Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:25 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
huntmmup wrote:SpinnerMan instead of sounding stupid, why not learn a little about science? Read the article. All of those authors agree that the warming is caused primarily by man. They do not agree on the very complicated scientific models used to predict what will happen as we keep putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, thats what they are all studying and publishing articles about.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: .......says dhunt TO A SCIENTIST!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I was almost thinking brydog.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: didIgetit and 10 guests