Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 18, 2014, 01:03:40 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
79111 Posts in 2226 Topics by 1036 Members
Latest Member: Evgeny Vasilyev
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Science, Culture, & Humanities
| | |-+  Pathological Science
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] Print
Author Topic: Pathological Science  (Read 94277 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11486


« Reply #750 on: March 06, 2014, 04:11:51 AM »

Vegans eat plants.  Plants reduce CO2.  Therefore Vegans are destroying the planet.

I eat animals who produce CO2 and eat CO" reducing plants.  Therefore I am a hero.

LOL!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5523


« Reply #751 on: March 27, 2014, 03:58:17 PM »

http://fourthcrown.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/liquid-water-discovered-on-surface-of-minnesota/

...comes as a surprise to the space exploration organization which has listed the state of Minnesota as “unsuitable for any and all biotic life” since mid-November.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3789


« Reply #752 on: April 15, 2014, 02:27:12 AM »

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3789


« Reply #753 on: April 15, 2014, 02:44:48 AM »



The Opinion Pages|Op-Ed Contributors 

Global Warming Scare Tactics


By TED NORDHAUS and MICHAEL SHELLENBERGERAPRIL 8, 2014

OAKLAND, Calif. — IF you were looking for ways to increase public skepticism about global warming, you could hardly do better than the forthcoming nine-part series on climate change and natural disasters, starting this Sunday on Showtime. A trailer for “Years of Living Dangerously” is terrifying, replete with images of melting glaciers, raging wildfires and rampaging floods. “I don’t think scary is the right word,” intones one voice. “Dangerous, definitely.”

Showtime’s producers undoubtedly have the best of intentions. There are serious long-term risks associated with rising greenhouse gas emissions, ranging from ocean acidification to sea-level rise to decreasing agricultural output.

But there is every reason to believe that efforts to raise public concern about climate change by linking it to natural disasters will backfire. More than a decade’s worth of research suggests that fear-based appeals about climate change inspire denial, fatalism and polarization.

For instance, Al Gore’s 2006 documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” popularized the idea that today’s natural disasters are increasing in severity and frequency because of human-caused global warming. It also contributed to public backlash and division. Since 2006, the number of Americans telling Gallup that the media was exaggerating global warming grew to 42 percent today from about 34 percent. Meanwhile, the gap between Democrats and Republicans on whether global warming is caused by humans rose to 42 percent last year from 26 percent in 2006, according to the Pew Research Center.

Other factors contributed. Some conservatives and fossil-fuel interests questioned the link between carbon emissions and global warming. And beginning in 2007, as the country was falling into recession, public support for environmental protection declined.

Still, environmental groups have known since 2000 that efforts to link climate change to natural disasters could backfire, after researchers at the Frameworks Institute studied public attitudes for its report “How to Talk About Global Warming.” Messages focused on extreme weather events, they found, made many Americans more likely to view climate change as an act of God — something to be weathered, not prevented.

Some people, the report noted, “are likely to buy an SUV to help them through the erratic weather to come” for example, rather than support fuel-efficiency standards.

Since then, evidence that a fear-based approach backfires has grown stronger. A frequently cited 2009 study in the journal Science Communication summed up the scholarly consensus. “Although shocking, catastrophic, and large-scale representations of the impacts of climate change may well act as an initial hook for people’s attention and concern,” the researchers wrote, “they clearly do not motivate a sense of personal engagement with the issue and indeed may act to trigger barriers to engagement such as denial.” In a controlled laboratory experiment published in Psychological Science in 2010, researchers were able to use “dire messages” about global warming to increase skepticism about the problem.

Many climate advocates ignore these findings, arguing that they have an obligation to convey the alarming facts.

But claims linking the latest blizzard, drought or hurricane to global warming simply can’t be supported by the science. Our warming world is, according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, increasing heat waves and intense precipitation in some places, and is likely to bring more extreme weather in the future. But the panel also said there is little evidence that this warming is increasing the loss of life or the economic costs of natural disasters. “Economic growth, including greater concentrations of people and wealth in periled areas and rising insurance penetration,” the climate panel noted, “is the most important driver of increasing losses.”
2013 has shown the true colors of the left’s false narrative on global warming. Both poles have expanding ice, with the Antarctic breaking...
 
Claims that current disasters are connected to climate change do seem to motivate many liberals to support action. But they alienate conservatives in roughly equal measure.

What works, say environmental pollsters and researchers, is focusing on popular solutions. Climate advocates often do this, arguing that solar and wind can reduce emissions while strengthening the economy. But when renewable energy technologies are offered as solutions to the exclusion of other low-carbon alternatives, they polarize rather than unite.

One recent study, published by Yale Law School’s Cultural Cognition Project, found that conservatives become less skeptical about global warming if they first read articles suggesting nuclear energy or geoengineering as solutions. Another study, in the journal Nature Climate Change in 2012, concluded that “communication should focus on how mitigation efforts can promote a better society” rather than “on the reality of climate change and averting its risks.”

Nonetheless, virtually every major national environmental organization continues to reject nuclear energy, even after four leading climate scientists wrote them an open letter last fall, imploring them to embrace the technology as a key climate solution. Together with catastrophic rhetoric, the rejection of technologies like nuclear and natural gas by environmental groups is most likely feeding the perception among many that climate change is being exaggerated. After all, if climate change is a planetary emergency, why take nuclear and natural gas off the table?

While the urgency that motivates exaggerated claims is understandable, turning down the rhetoric and embracing solutions like nuclear energy will better serve efforts to slow global warming.
 

Ted Nordhaus is the chairman and Michael Shellenberger is the president of the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research organization.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5523


« Reply #754 on: April 15, 2014, 07:44:51 PM »

Not funny, but rare - this is the first time I've seen this. Soon we will all suffer this.  Current atmospheric levels are 400 ppm.  The CDC toxic level is 40000 ppm.  We don't have much time...  http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.kare11.com/story/news/local/2014/04/14/1-hospitalized-after-carbon-dioxide-poisoning/7721665/

1 hospitalized after carbon dioxide poisoning
Associated Press 9:19 p.m. EDT April 14, 2014

ROCHESTER, Minn. - A Rochester bar employee is hospitalized after being overcome by carbon dioxide from the restaurant's pop machine.  Authorities say 63-year-old Jerry Johnson was poisoned by the gas while working Monday morning at Rooster's Barn and Grill.  Deputy Fire Chief Vance Swisher tells KTTC-TV employees at Rooster's heard what sounded like something leaking. That's when Johnson went downstairs to check it out.  Swisher says a carbonation machine that puts the fizz into the restaurant's pop had malfunctioned and filled the basement with carbon dioxide.  Johnson collapsed when he went into the basement. A co-worker called 911.  Restaurant patrons and employees tried to pull him out, but turned back because they couldn't breathe. Firefighters had to use breathing tanks while inside the restaurant.   Mayo Clinic says Johnson is in serious condition.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!