Does Obama Know ANYTHING About Science?

Even if I did hijack my own thread, I'm having fun exposing Obama's ignorance. What I meant though, is that IF you wanted to hijack my thread, it's OK.

 

Oh, okay, gotcha. Thanks. But I"m pretty happy with the idea of an Obama-Perry face off on science. So if I post any more on this one I'll be sticking with that.

 

Good. I'm sure many members of the forum are eager to hear Obama's credentials in science-related disciplines such as physics, biology, chemistry, physical science, earth science and other disciplines like theory, logic, mathematics, statistics, or applied science. Any science that has to do with the topic of our discussion. Political science doesn't count.

 

Hey, anyone who can walk on water & convince fools he is doing a good job while the country is going in the dumper has to know about some kind of science!

 

I thought it was my video that hijacked this thread. I mean the camel toe alone was enough to change most people's thoughts.

 

Still looking for those "scientist" or did you give up? Hum? You can't challenge our fact because you have no facts.

 

I kind of lost interest in responding to you once you threw out the "fact" that only 10% TV meteorologists believe in man-made climate change. Never really quite offered anything backing up that assertion by those pillars of the scientific community but what the heck, proof is overrated anyway. Then you babbled on about something else but I had lost complete interest in your opinions by that point and went straight to ignoring you until you summoned me back with your usual misrepresentation of your assertions and mine and challenged me to climb back aboard the Lu Lu Express way after that train had left the tracks.

 

So you knew "97-98% of world scientists agree that man is the cause of the climate change that we are currently experiencing." was a lie but you posted it anyway?

 

Expert credibility in climate change

1. William R. L. Anderegg a , 1 ,
2. James W. Prall b ,
3. Jacob Harold c , and
4. Stephen H. Schneider a , d , 1

+ Author Affiliations

1. aDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
2. bElectrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3G4;
3. c William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Palo Alto, CA 94025; and
4. dWoods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305

1. 
   Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)

Abstract

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

In other words, the people like your TV meteorologists that are unconvinced of climate change have an expertise substantially lower than the most prominent researchers in the field of climatology i.e. they are stupid and so are those that put their faith in them.

 

In other words, your "experts" don't think our expert know what they know. Whoopee! I am not playing que es mas macho. Still can't back up "97-98% of world scientists agree that man is the cause of the climate change that we are currently experiencing"?

 

Okay, you're right. It might not be 97% I'll be reeally conservative just to make you feel better and go with 75% Check this out and see what you think. Their stuff is documented. But documentation can always be disputed so go for it. I just wouldn't rely on your local weather person. Or RW talk show idiot.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Also...
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

It's really about emission regulations. Those in favor of less regulations, both current and proposed, believe they are hurting business, and ultimately profit. The argument is that the more you restrict how much a company can pollute the less jobs there are.

The truth is that in the scientific community the debate is essentially over on whether or not humans are causing the current World climate change. The majority of the remaining dissenting voices, most coming from big business, are just reluctant to admit it. They fear it will cause economic harm, especially to their profits, if they don't challenge the theory.

 

Hummmm? not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused - but I have read them? Where did what I read come from? And then there is;

 

I will save you two much grief. I will concede that the majority of meteorologists and climatologist have supported global warming. What other scientists do is pretty much meaningless. However, why you insist on trying to back you side with such obvious exaggerations as "not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused" and "97-98% of world scientists agree that man is the cause of the climate change that we are currently experiencing". They are so ridiculously absurd as to be funny and they belittle your arguments and discredit your sources.

 

A petition is not a peer-reviewed paper or abstract. I can call myself a scientist and sign anything I want. There's kind of a difference.

 

Al gore has been the face of global warming over the last 10-15 years. In that time he has benefited to the tune of billions of dollars by making sure the "science" supported his message. All this while sucking up fossil fuels in his private luxury jet & using as much energy in his private residence as the entire town combined where he resides. This sort of hypocrisy just makes me question whether the issue is valid or merely some sort of money grab by the hypocrites on the left. Plus, there's that issue of so many private discussions among global warming advocates being exposed where they seem to be conspiring to advance the issue in order to protect their own reputations.

 

Why let Al Gore decide for you? If you're concerned about the validity of the research start reading some of it and decided for yourself.

 

Oh, I have but for every article written supporting global warming there's one written refuting it. Since I'm not a scientist I have to fall back on my business experience & critical thinking. To me, it seems there is a lot of money to be made selling global warming fears and the leaders of the march seem to be profiting the most. The leaders of the march also are the most hypocritical. I see the benefit that comes from selling global warming but what motivation would a scientist have to deny it if it truly exists?
I guess, for me, it's the hypocrisy & profiterring of global warming advocates that tips the scale for me.

 

Whoopee? Really? Whoopee?

My 97%-98% figure isn't in dispute. I haven't seen you back up your 10% claim. Are you trying to change the subjest so you don't have to bother backing up your wild claim or do you actually have proof? I thought so!

 

The figure may be accurate, but what it really means is not only in dispute, but totally debunked by your own references. The figure is meaningless and your statement that it is "97-98% of world scientists" is just an out and out lie.