You want to discuss this rationally.. but start off with humanity destroying the earth within 200 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
Stop.
Printable View
You want to discuss this rationally.. but start off with humanity destroying the earth within 200 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
Stop.
So lets see your data. Surely, since you know better than everyone else what's going on, you can show us how you came to your conclusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
The rock we stand on will most definitely still be here. So, no worries!Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
That's a cute way to not read. Keep practicing hard, and sooner or later you'll get the hang of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
1. Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time.
Politicians have needlessly made it so.
2. Humans are changing the earth's climate.
No. You can't prove that at all. No one has been able to thus far. A 50 PPM change in C02 in something that makes up .0039% of the Atmosphere seems slightly ludicrous doesn't it?
We can however show that the Urban Heat Island effect does in fact change overall data. And it's been removed from the latest IPCC reports as an "anomaly," which sounds pretty bogus to me.
Attachment 6233Attachment 6234Attachment 6235Attachment 6236Attachment 6237
3. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, sea levels have risen, Arctic ice is declining.
The GRACE program through the University of Texas with a little help from NASA have shown that the changing gravitational field around the Earth has more effect on Sea Level than the theory of man-made global warming. http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gallery/gravity/
C02 Level Changes - Considering how dramatic this NASA created chart is...you'd think we'd be in more trouble if C02 was the actual cause. No need to be an alarmist.
Attachment 6239
Arctic Sea Ice VERUS Antarctic Sea Ice! The Ultimate battle!
A new NASA study shows that from 1978 to 2010 the total extent of sea ice surrounding Antarctica in the Southern Ocean grew by roughly 6,600 square miles every year, an area larger than the state of Connecticut. And previous research by the same authors indicates that this rate of increase has recently accelerated, up from an average rate of almost 4,300 square miles per year from 1978 to 2006. Meh.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...rctic-ice.html
Ocean Temperature changes globally - Since 1969
Hotter by .302 Degrees Farenheit
And don't forget about the Medieval Warming Period! Unless they were all doing some serious industrial shit that we didn't know about...
http://www.co2science.org/education/...ntpath/ch1.php
And the Little Ice Age right after that! (Which actually ended in the mid 1800s.)
The reality is that we just don't know enough to make crazy assumptions and legislation that does nothing more than redistribute wealth and hurt the 3rd World.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I say we launch all nukes. For great justice.
It certainly would be an excellent way not to confront our actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I don't believe at any point that we've done any permanent damage to the planet at all. And as I mentioned way earlier, I am all for being a good steward of the planet, I just see no cause for new legislation or taxes based on a theory that shows no negative effect. More C02 is good for plants. Higher temperatures are good for plants. Not everything has to be, "The Day After Tomorrow."Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Global Warming isn't the all or nothing proposition that Politicians make it out to be. Feel free to go back and look at all of the references and graphs I posted. Go to NOAA and play around with the timelines and data sets yourself. You can see that yes, humanity has caused an increase in Atmospheric C02. 80PPM since Industrialization began. That's 80 Parts Per Million in .039% of the Atmosphere. Seems far fetched that it's that big of a deal when C02 is kind of a required substance for plant life on the planet. But either way, play around with the data sets at NOAA. Look at 1900 - Present timelines in rural areas that are still rural and very urban areas that used to be rural. It's very telling that a conscious effort to remove the Urban Heat Island effect from data sets only goes to show you that the IPCC is just trying to maintain the MMGW narrative.
My head isn't in the sand. I just find the constant attempts of my Government to scare me very annoying and my carbon footprint is smaller than most people. And no, I get no subsidies from Big Oil or Industry. I like to think and research for myself.
Or you just don't want to think your actions have had an impact. It's more comfortable that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
Or you could just be a leftist parrot without the capability of independent thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Actually, a nuclear war would likely result in the healing of mother earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
A massive war would kill off a majority of the population, reducing future co2 use. It would also cool the planet significantly for a prolonged period of time. Earth would have less people, and an easier time doing what it does best... adjusting.
Really? Might you not have a foregone conclusion before you made any of yours? Ala the people who don't believe in evolution?Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
I read your post... and I pointed out the stupidity in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
Sorry.
IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING, YOU ARE A FLAT EARTHER WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION!Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
There seems to be some misconception about the effects of global warming/climate change. The Earth is not in trouble. Life here will go on. Humans are in trouble. Slight changes in the environment can mean big changes for large populations. CO2 may be good for plants; changing the chemistry of the atmosphere is not good for mammals.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
The references and grabs you posted are either incorrect, a small part of the bigger story or just blatantly misinterpreted to fit your belief system. Just read the link you posted about sea ice. You cherry picked one paragraph to support your ideas but half that article is explaining the phenomena and it's not a pretty picture. Heat islands weren't just ignored to make the math work. They were accounted for and they don't have an effect on total global warming since most of the earth is water and open land. The ocean increased .32 degrees fahrenheit. Do you have any idea how hard it is to warm that much water?
The ideas you presented are addressed in the NAS report. You should read it. At least it will give you information to try to refute.
In your case you're apparently just an ALLCAPSINGASSHOLE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
It's the same style argument "We can't be polluting because then I'd have to be unhappy about my actions!" "We can't be descended from monkeys because then my Jeebus story would fail!" Then find research.
Science can't prove that God didn't create mankind. So you do fail in that regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I still say... if you want me to take you seriously about "climate change" Stop polluting the environment first. THEN I will listen to what you have to say.
Until then... it's like trying to listen to someone saying violence is bad.. while he is beating on a person with a baseball bat.
Jarvan only listens to hippies living off grid on a commune in Alaska.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Not even them. They'd have to use the grid to get their message out and, you know, Hypocrites.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
I use capital letters to illustrate your stupidity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I don't believe it's as dire of a situation that you obviously do. I believe if you look at the money and the political push behind this movement, you will find that it's less about the actual environment and more about an agenda. So far, none of the dire consequences that were told were going to happen has happened.. just more bullshit predictions that make the movement look more and more full of shit.
Are we immediately going to drown? No, of course not. I do think we're capable of altering and even radically altering our planet to our detriment, however. I think it's important to look at the money and political push in multiple directions. I also detest anti-intellectualism and anti-science movements in general, given how I was forced to grow up in a hotbed of creationist/intelligent design idiocy thanks to conservatives and fundamentalist Christians. This stuff feels the same because I hear it a lot from the same people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I don't feel the need to insult you merely for disagreeing with me, but you're marching right along with them. I don't think you believe the Earth is 4000 years old and that dinosaurs are elaborate fakes by scientists.
So... Unless you're a woman that's carried a child, you won't value someone's stance on abortion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
If you have never received welfare, you won't value their critique of the process?
So until we've passed congressional budgets, we shouldn't be making comments about how effective a president is?
Until we're all Dayko, you won't listen to opinions on gay marriage?
I can't decide which is more of a certainty - that the earth has been changing its climate since it was formed, or that we're going to have to go through this argument once every 527 days.
Florida could be covered in 18 inches of snow in the middle of July and PB would say that we're just in the middle of a natural cycle.
An eerie enough thought to make me go back to watching True Detective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
I don't disagree... I just don't believe it's as dire as people who are profiting off this created crisis make it out to be.. while continuing to live their life in direct opposition to what they claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
lolwut? You don't feel the need to insult me, but because I disagree with you.. you feel the need?Quote:
I don't feel the need to insult you merely for disagreeing with me, but you're marching right along with them.
ok.
What gave it away first.. my Atheism or my posting that people who believe the earth is 4000 years old are idiots?Quote:
I don't think you believe the Earth is 4000 years old and that dinosaurs are elaborate fakes by scientists.
I didn't cherry pick anything. All of those sources are also the same organizations that NAS/IPCC get their info from. I just didn't make dire predictions and then alter the data to fit my narrative. I pulled data sets for different locations and regions in order to show how random temperature has been over the years, the last 100 to be exact, in a "global" phenoma, you'd think you would see warming at least a little bit everywhere. But you'd be wrong. The only consistent warming trend that shows any kind of realistic rise is in very developed areas. You can go play with the data sets yourself. NOAA is widely regarded by IPCC and NAS, neither of whom actually do anything but compile data from actual scientists.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
from the co-founder of green peace's mouth.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/327239008...#sp=show-clips
You would make the claim that the 18" of snow in the middle of July in Florida is a result of man made global warming though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
FAUX N3WZ!Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
I bet Patrick Moore sold out to BIG OIL!
This is from the NASA report that you linked.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
Quote:
Parkinson said that the fact that some areas of the Southern Ocean are cooling and producing more sea ice does not disprove a warming climate.
"Climate does not change uniformly: The Earth is very large and the expectation definitely would be that there would be different changes in different regions of the world,” Parkinson said. "That's true even if overall the system is warming.” Another recent NASA study showed that Antarctic sea ice slightly thinned from 2003 to 2008, but increases in the extent of the ice balanced the loss in thickness and led to an overall volume gain.
Do you really watch that stuff? Those people were all idiots. How can you stand it?Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
Probably less idiotic than your pals at MSNBC though.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
I don't watch msnbc either.
That's even stupider then usual for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
Not saying much though.
Years of training in the PC political folder.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Something that needlessly exists still exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
Humans are net producers of CO2 as opposed to net consumers, therefore humans are changing the earth's climate. I have no idea what your question has to do with anything, or even what it's asking. Judging by your later posts, you are saying that the magnitude is too large to be plausible, in a sense using the smell test? That is not a scientific thing to do.Quote:
2. Humans are changing the earth's climate. No. You can't prove that at all. No one has been able to thus far. A 50 PPM change in C02 in something that makes up .0039% of the Atmosphere seems slightly ludicrous doesn't it?
I say humans are changing the earth's climate, you cite a case of humans changing the earth's climate. How is this a disagreement?Quote:
We can however show that the Urban Heat Island effect does in fact change overall data. And it's been removed from the latest IPCC reports as an "anomaly," which sounds pretty bogus to me.
Ah, I see now. It's not the first paragraph you disagree with at all, it's that you assume the explanation they give for man being the primary causer is nonsense. It's too bad you don't actually look at that explanation, you might even change your mind.Quote:
3. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, sea levels have risen, Arctic ice is declining. The GRACE program through the University of Texas with a little help from NASA have shown that the changing gravitational field around the Earth has more effect on Sea Level than the theory of man-made global warming. http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gallery/gravity/
Incorrect. I would say I am not qualified to appraise the relative merits of any reputable scientists work, which has been my position for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I would then follow that up with the statement that there will be another ice age, and the sun will expand, so to increase the longevity of our race we should invest in geoengineering to create methods to climate control our atmosphere.
You know... you are starting to sound like a creationist.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
"Just because you can't prove God didn't create man doesn't mean it isn't true."
The funny thing about the "climate change" argument for scientists that Believe in it.... they can use anything to prove their data.
As the above statement shows, NOTHING can disprove what they say. Because when it comes right down to it, they can always spin it to show something else.
We could see near nothing in climate change for 100 years... and yet these same scientists would be all, "well we KNOW it will happen sooner or late, just watch".
It's like end of the Worlders. They only have to be right once.
To bad they never are.
There's a difference between saying you're a particular brand of foolish and saying you're accompanying them to a destination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
You're not allowed to say reasonable things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
The difference is that climate change has been scientifically proven. You and many people disagree, but this is not scientifically relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
The argument isn't whether or not the climate changes...of course it does, and has, many times over the lifetime of our planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
The question is, exactly how far should mankind go to alter the course of nature?
Isn't it a little late to ask that question? We've already done it and even if every human were to drop dead today, there are changes underway that will continue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
The question today is how the hell do we contain the damage and minimize future damage.
Quote:
If emissions of greenhouse gases were
stopped, would the climate return
to the conditions of 200 years ago?
No. Even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to suddenly stop, Earth’s surface temperature
would not cool and return to the level in the pre-industrial era for thousands of years.
The debate is over! No more criticism! If you criticism, you are a flat earther!Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Yes, yes... scientific indeed.
I'd say a better test would be if you believed in the research of the Tobacco Institute or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I'm reasonably sure the argument is how far mankind already alters the course of nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Criticize all you want, but if your criticisms have already been answered it makes you look pretty silly to keep trotting them out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Discounting the Urban Heat Island effect in IPCC reports alone shows that Climate Models are skewed to fit the narrative. If you put UHIE data back into the datasets and actually go back to when temperatures started being recorded with any validity, say 1840ish, you would see that this entire theory of man-made global warming isn't even a thing. But of course, if I could dumb it down more maybe you'd get it but it would require you to look at the actual data and timeline and reports....and fuck it. Believe whatever you want.
http://www.tobaccoinstitute.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
They had a fantastic series of gotchas with a prior conclusion in mind too. Some good reading for you if you don't want to read the document at the start of the thread.
I think you're confusing "accounting" for the heat island effect on temp. recordings with "dismissing" the effect. Those are two very different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
The first I heard of the Heat Island theory was in the book State of Fear by Michael Crichton. Here's what the Union of Concerned Scientist has published about it.
A 2011 Study also specifically addressed this issue. You can find more about that here and here.Quote:
3. What is the "urban heat island effect" and is it contributing to warming?
State of Fear characters suggest that the "urban heat island effect" may be responsible not only for heating in cities but also for global warming. They note that many long-term temperature stations are now surrounded by larger cities and could contribute to the warming seen in urban stations. While amplified warming does occur in cities and is an important local phenomenon, cities occupy only a small fraction of the planet compared to the vast area of oceans, ice caps, uninhabited mountains, and rural landscapes. Scientists are well aware and take measures to adjust for this effect so that the overall temperature trend is not biased. Temperature monitoring stations exist around the globe, on both land and sea, and we see a clear warming trend from many locations. Compared to the number of temperature stations for the U.S., it is clear that urban stations are a minor component of the U.S. temperature station network (Figure 2). The IPCC (2001) stated that urban heat island effects could contribute no more than six percent of the rising average temperature trends in 1990, and a National Academy study of the surface temperature record concluded that the global surface temperature trend accurately reflects warming.
Furthermore, temperature gauges are not the only way to measure temperature changes. Satellites operating since 1979 have monitored lower atmosphere (tropopause) temperature over the land and oceans. Although early satellite analyses indicated only a small amount of warming during this period, these early results overlooked a satellite sensor feature that we now know included cooling data from higher in the atmosphere. Corrected for this error, the satellite measurements are now in good agreement with the global average surface temperature trends.
The responses are pretty funny too.
Prof Dave Griggs is CEO of ClimateWorks Australia & Director of the Monash Sustainability Institute, Melbourne, comments:
“The paper confirms previous work that the observed warming of the Earth since the beginning of the 20th Century cannot be attributed to the urban heat island (UHI) effect. This comes as no surprise to climate scientists who take great care to take account of this effect in their work. It also confirms findings from other studies using very different methods. For example, looking at temperature trends on windy days and calm days also show no difference contrary to what you would expect from the urban heat island as the heat would build up more on calm days. So, hopefully this paper will help to put this urban (heat island) myth to bed.”
Prof Neville Nicholls is ARC Professorial Fellow in the School of Geography and Environmental Science at Monash University, Melbourne, comments:
“My first reaction on hearing the result of this study, namely that urbanization has NOT led to exaggerated estimates of global warming, was certainly not one of surprise! Those of us who have spent years checking the temperature data and using these to estimate global warming have always checked to ensure that this was not an issue. And even if you were worried about this possible issue, the fact that temperatures measured on small islands were showing similar warming, as do ocean temperatures and alpine snow and glacier shrinkage, and sea-ice retreat, should have put your mind at rest. Even satellite measurements of global temperature show similar warming to the land-based thermometers.
“Only those most desperate to dismiss global warming have tried to blame urbanization for the observed warming. But I guess it is always good to have yet another group confirm decades of work by climate scientists. Perhaps this will finally put to rest the furphy that the warming is caused by urbanization. I won’t hold my breath though. I guess those spreading misinformation about warming will just move on to another one of their furphies.”
Argument by Bad Analogy added to Argument by Poisoning the Wells. Good job distracting there WB, fallacious arguments are still fallacious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Do you really want to go down that road in this context? I'm actually thinking not. I was responding to someone who refuses to even read the article he's debating.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Hey, don't sell yourself short. You couldn't possibly get any dumber. :heart:Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
I'm glad you brought this up, because I think it illustrates the fundamental difference between the two sides. There are two kinds of science: rational and empirical. Rational means to use reason, empirical means to use experiment/data. The tricky part is that rational science is the only one that makes sense rationally and empirical science is the only one that makes sense empirically; put another way, there's no way for the two sides to talk to each other. Rational science leads to beautiful, elegant, simple systems. All you have to do is basic reasoning and their verity is confirmed. It is only in rationalism that you can say things like...Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
-correlation is not causation
-all people have bias
-people disagree
Note how all these things are true! This is what makes rationalism so seductive, combined of course with never having to put in any work or thought to your position whatsoever.
.
Of course, the people that take refuge in these observations do so only when it is convenient for them. All of empirical science is a logical fallacy, so it is technically correct to point out that logical fallacy whenever you don't cotton to whatever it is empirical science has shown in a particular arena. Categorically embracing rationalism is for twits, and there is no law against hypocrisy.
No you weren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I don't really watch it but instead of criticizing the channel you should address the issue about what the ex-head of green peace just said. All you people claiming there is global warming have no FACTS. No real DATA that shows it's happening. Just an al gore video with penguins in it and a bunch of scientist who's predictions are wrong. If you just look at the facts global warming is a moot point. Ohh and don't forget that your leader al gore sold his global empire built on climate change to a Muslim televisions network. It's all a big lie and people are making money on it. Now you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
http://static.squarespace.com/static...oil-hat-2.jpegQuote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
I have 32 pages of facts, they're listed in the OP. None of them involve a head of Greenpeace (current or former) or Al Gore. You can refuse to believe in those facts, that's your right as a member of corvidae computer generatus, but they exist nevertheless.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
Here's a good place to start your reasearch.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
http://mediamatters.org/research/201...r-green/198266
and here
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/med...ent-on-patric/
and here
http://greenspiritstrategies.com/
Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
I don't understand your beef with penguins. I for one find penguins to be very trustworthy. Maybe you were hurt by a penguin in the past?
You know.. any other scientific Theory.. that had as many papers published as this. With data and numbers that showed proof... that the proof never surfaced. Would be laughed at.. but because it's global warming.. it's a fact.
Imagine if Einstein showed "proof" of his theory.. and it turned out wrong, then showed proof again.. and was wrong.. and then said.. well, it will be right eventually, trust me.
I'm sorry but the articles you linked are from green peace. The co-founder just said it was bs. So why waste my time reading something that the producer said was bogus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
He stated it in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
He's not a co-founder of Greenpeace, first of all. Hasn't been involved in GP for 20 years. He's a paid shill for the nuclear energy institute. This is what greenpeace says about it, although I'm sure you won't read it because it's greenpeace.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...d-information/
And just for giggles I'm going to put this here:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/images/us101/balance.gif
It's funny you bring up Einstein. You believe in his relativity, but can you perform the math of his relativity? Can you cite the proofs of his relativity without looking them up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Would it be fair to say, then, that the active ingredient in your belief has nothing to do with proof? Instead, you've never heard someone argue against Einstein's relativity, thus you think Einstein's relativity isn't up for debate. You have heard people argue against AGW, thus you think it is.
Wayward's right. Check out this link http://greenspiritstrategies.com/. That's his company. They help Energy, Forestry, Mining, Aquaculture, Agriculture and the Chemicals and Manufacuturing industries talk to people so that the people can see Green Sprits clients in the best possible light.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
Here's what they say about energy:
Energy
Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. supports a realistic energy mix that can meet the world’s growing demands for power in a sustainable way. And because we believe the world will need oil for the forseeable future, we support environmentally sound oil extraction, like is being done in the Canadian oil sands. We support the use of safe, reliable and clean nuclear energy. We believe sustainable hydro is also key to a stable energy future. We support the use of renewable geothermal heat pumps for heating and cooling homes efficiently.
And I was responding to a shit stirring shit poster. I want you to contribute something, anything of value on this forum. Ever. Or just shut the hell up. You distract, insult, get on your high horse of vapid so called moral superiority and compassion and shit up threads right and left. You have no point, make no valid argument in recent history, randomly cite stuff that is not germane to the topic being discussed and use all manner of other tactics and techniques to distract, upset, derail and stir shit so that you can claim moral victory when people stop posting due to your crap. You are the king of fallacious arguments. If you don't want called out on your bullshit, stop acting like a shit flinging monkey and contribute something of value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Something of value like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Mmm....I was kinda hoping you, of all people, would catch that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
What is happening now is natural. Attempting to stop it is not.
It's bad science, and you know it. When charting a timeline for anything, you start at the beginning, not the end. You can't just pick out the part of the timeline that fits your narrative and dismiss all other related data. It's ludicrous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
What about picking a conclusion first and then dismissing all the other data? Doesn't that violate the scientific method from the start?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
I was purposefully making fun of someone. If people have already agreed not to make something serious by their actions, why exactly does it matter to you? You certainly don't follow your own rules. Why am I supposed to listen to your value judgement then? Or care?Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
You mean like those scientists that fudged climate data to support global warming?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
My kindergarten teacher taught me two wrongs don't make a right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
True, but isn't that exactly what they did? They came to the conclusion that man is causing the Earth to warm.. then cherry picked the data to support that conclusion and dismissed any data that didn't support the claim. I mean heck, if they didn't prove the conclusion that was the foundation of the grant money they were receiving, they were essentially out of a pretty lucrative job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
All I want to know is this: If man is changing the climate.. do I need more sweaters or more tee shirts? If the debate is over, the science is proven, just tell me what to buy.
If that actually were what happened by all the scientists who investigated global warming ever (which is a hilariously entertaining notion, but let's play along) it still doesn't stop the opposite from being a violation of the scientific method too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I'm not a scientist but to my understanding all the average Floridian would have to prepare for is an alteration of weather patterns and you already prepare for hurricanes, presumably.
If you're correct and the science, from a basic and fundamental level, is completely wrong; then where are the legitimate skeptics? Science is full of big competitive egos. It's implausible to think that they would all collude. The only thing I'm hearing from the deniers on here is more consipiracy theories. Where's the Beef?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Those who think scientists keep silent on global warming presumably because they fear the barbs of the world demonstrate a peculiar kind of paranoia, especially since what they fear largely does not exist. More prosaically they need to recall Carl Sagan’s words again because the claim that scientist don’t dare to speak out against global warming in the literature is, quite definitely, an extraordinary claim. And it doesn’t seem to stand up to even ordinary evidence.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...one-disagrees/
Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers took a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the scientist self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. Many papers captured in our literature search simply investigated an issue related to climate change without taking a position on its cause.
Our survey found that the consensus has grown slowly over time, and reached about 98% as of 2011. Our results are also consistent with several previous surveys finding a 97% consensus amongst climate experts on the human cause of global warming.
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...fclimatechange
“The public perception of a scientific consensus on [manmade warming] is a necessary element in public support for climate policy,” the study says. “However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity.”
But Keith Kloor, a science writer for Discover, smartly argues that while closing this gap is a laudable goal, it doesn’t necessarily move the needle on public’s level of concern about the issue or their motivation to act.
“Over many years of research, we have consistently found that, on average, Americans view climate change as a threat distant in space and time–a risk that will affect far away places, other species, or future generations more than people here and now,” concludes a Yale report that Kloor cites.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...g-so-what-now/
“Over many years of research, we have consistently found that, on average, Americans view climate change as a threat distant in space and time–a risk that will affect far away places, other species, or future generations more than people here and now,” concludes a Yale report that Kloor cites.
Isn't that a reasonable view on the average? Break it down into it's component parts...
-In space and time. Maybe people living on the fringes might notice the extra 1/2 of a degree? A reasonable belief.
-Other species. The canary in the coal mine will die first. A reasonable belief.
-Future Generations. This potentially covers millions of future generations. A reasonable belief.
Humans are a wonderfully adaptive species. As a species we've survived climate changes in the past; it's Chicken Little, "the sky is falling" stupid to think that as a species we won't survive other periods of climate change, whatever the source. Eventually people will work out the actual science in a manner that better forecasts long term climate change based on a variety of natural and man made factors. We're also a manipulative greedy species, there will always be people looking to politicize the process to line their pockets with the cash of people who both care, and don't care.
I dated a hippie chick last year for a few months. She talked the good talk, frowned at the use of insecticides in my garden, suggested I could eat my dandelion greens, gave me a recipe to make dandelion wine (which she admitted tasted horrible,) she made a point of shopping at the local co-op when I was around, and some other little things. She talked about attending some Wiccan tree festival thing in the woods (stoners getting stoned) but never bothered to attend, and just generally talked a lot about how "they" should be doing more to save the planet. In reality, she had twice as much processed crap in her fridge than I have, drove a bigger car than I do, didn't bother to get it tuned, or check tire pressure, her garden was overgrown with weeds and bugs, and yielded pretty much nothing, her house was packed with the same consumer goods, she had the most recent iphone, ate quinoa (but felt guilty that the indigenous quinoa eaters could no longer afford it) ate edamame shipped across the world on tanker ships, and generally lived with a larger carbon footprint than I do.
I guess my point is, it's hard to take people too seriously when they profess to have these firm beliefs, but they behave pretty much exactly like the people they claim to disparage. Liberals, conservatives, whatever, these are just labels people put on themselves hoping they'll be loved a tiny bit more.
Humans, like coyotes, are marvelously adaptive. It is hubris to dismiss our capabilities though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap
BREAKING NEWS: Area Man Rejects Science After Girlfriend Fails to Buy Organic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the point being made. The narrative is that humans are causing the majority of net global warming over the past 200 years, and the proof for this is controlling for the other phenomena that might cause it. You talk about "natural" but you are talking qualitatively. The sun warms the earth, but the sun's effects are measurable. Volcanoes produce CO2, but volcanoes are measurable. If you add up all these measurables (for a fuller list see the report) they model the past 800,000 years with high fidelity but go completely off the rails in the past 200 years. Hence, man is to blame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
The narrative is not that the earth has never been hotter, or has never had more CO2 in the atmosphere, or that everywhere on the globe is hotter at all times, or that man is the only source of warming. These are straw men.What we have not survived is a mass extinction event. To extend the bird metaphor, it is ostrich ignorant to believe such events have nothing to do with climate change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap
How in the holy fuck did you get the idea that I reject science? I was a math major, with an emphasis on statistics. I fucking love science! I hate the politicizing of science. What I reject is clowns like you who can't even figure out what the point of my post is, and respond anyway with a ripped off tag line from the Onion. Nuances! It's not an either or question.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Have you calibrated your doomsday clock recently?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Don't Mind Cwolff... his whole existence is to make everything an Us vs Them moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap
If I honestly believed in man made global warming, I would do far more than I currently do... and I'm already doing more than most of the man made global warming crowd on this message board.
If you honestly don't believe in it, then why are you doing anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I didn't say a mass extinction event was imminent. I'm just pointing out that saying we've always survived climate change is as much a function of our history's specific range of climate change as it is our adaptability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap
"I'll do anything to save the planet from global warming...as long as it doesn't directly impact my way of life." -- Democrats.
Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Yo momma wears combat boots!Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
HAHA!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I give up. I can't compete with that. Laughing too much.
Aka. Typical response from WB, Back and sometimes Cwolff.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I know you didn't, you just posted a general principle without commentary. That's why I went with my funny reply. I hate it when I have to explain my funnies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
I'm also not suggesting the species will survive when the sun begins it's progression to a red dwarf, nor a half million degree sudden temperature change from a particularly pesky nuclear bomb. Somewhere between the 1/2 degree change and these extreme examples, we'll cope.
The more interesting questions to me, are more a combination of science, sociology and ethics. Just because mankind can survive something, doesn't mean it will be fun to do so. Look at the smog in China, that's got to suck to live in. Is the larger concern the immediate death of Chinese citizens by breathing, or the possible long term affect of that smog on the world climate? Do we, as concerned world citizens get a say in how that developing country chooses to behave, after we've already gone through our smoggy industrial revolution ourselves? Is it enough to give them friendly advice on how to better the environment, or should we bomb them into oblivion to keep them from ever polluting again? Maybe somewhere in the middle?
Because I do believe that being good stewards of this planet is everyone's responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Well, that and I believe in another green movement:
http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/bill.jpg
I think the real question is: If you believe so blindly in man made global warming.. why aren't you doing more to combat it??
I think the answer is because it costs to much to be green.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
THEY don't want to pay it. They want the Government and Companies to pay it.
He is doing more, he's asking you to vote for his political party, to change your way of living, for you to pat him on the head and tell him how clever he is for buying that plastic packaging that says "organic" on it. If you'd just get on board with his slacktivism everything would be solved! Science made observations, therefore there's only HIS way to proceed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Maybe I am already. Should we whip out our recycling bins and measure?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Tu quoque /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/,[1] (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented[2] whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, such behavior does not invalidate the position presented.
Are you personally fighting global warming or not? You believe in good stewardship and say you're doing more to combat climate change than most people then you also say that you don't believe in it. What is it? You believe in it or don't you? You think it requires attention or not? You've got a couple wires crossed somewhere, I'm just trying to help you get it sorted out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
For a guy who "fucking loves science" you sure don't seem to pay much attention to scientists. This isn't a political issue, unfortunately you keep looking at it in that context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap
More two wrongs make a right theory. This is incisive stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
The report addresses this question, and the somewhere is not as far from the 1/2 degree as you seem to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap
They are certainly more interesting, because they are actually questions and not settled matters. I would say that they are certainly less relevant, though, because we can't talk about solutions until we agree there's a problem.Quote:
The more interesting questions to me, are more a combination of science, sociology and ethics. Just because mankind can survive something, doesn't mean it will be fun to do so. Look at the smog in China, that's got to suck to live in. Is the larger concern the immediate death of Chinese citizens by breathing, or the possible long term affect of that smog on the world climate? Do we, as concerned world citizens get a say in how that developing country chooses to behave, after we've already gone through our smoggy industrial revolution ourselves? Is it enough to give them friendly advice on how to better the environment, or should we bomb them into oblivion to keep them from ever polluting again? Maybe somewhere in the middle?
I don't believe in treating the homeless as actual people but that doesn't mean I'm gonna go around kicking them in the teeth all day.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I may or may not be joking about the above sentence.
Why won't Terrence make a clear statement that he doesn't kick homeless people in the teeth? What is he trying to hide?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Maybe I'm a dentist and the government pays me to treat poor people and my best customers are homeless people missing a few teeth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Hey if everyone would stop trying to fight dental problems and trying to make gingivitis disappear I wouldn't have to make my own patients!
Before we go further? Are you stoned right now? Because I'm not going to waste my time debating with someone who is stoned?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I have no problem with scientists. You however, seemingly do. Let's give you a very simple example.
Scientific experiment: Temperature yesterday at noon at my location was 18 degrees. Today, the temperature at noon at my location was 22 degrees. That's science. It's boring science, it's lame science, but it's factually correct. Expand that experiment to consider 100 other variables. Where was the jet stream each day, was it overcast, was the barometer rising or falling, was my car running six inches away from the thermometer, was the earth's tilt increasing or decreasing by a millionth of a degree, did my dog fart in the yard.
Let's say you account for these hundreds of variables accurately. Now what? Can we determine a trend? Should I not use my car? Would an electric car shipped across the world help the price of grain in Omaha? Should I plant a maple tree, or an oak tree in my front yard? But won't the roots ruin my septic system? Can I get a government grant for planting an organic tree farm? Wait, what? These questions are flat out stupid and not related to that scientific conclusion that their was a 3 degree temperature change since yesterday.
Just because science exists doesn't mean that you should pimp it out to feed your ideals no matter what the data is. You don't care about the science, all you do is fling the "Anti Science" label about at your foes, like a monkey flings shit. Yes, certain idiots deserve to have that label flung at them, but you aren't even clever enough to know who to fling it at.
Sorry for the ad hominen attacks, but you just aren't making sense.
I've never denied there was a concern. Is it a tempest in a teapot? Beats me, I haven't seen the science and the modeling that accounts for even a small fraction of the earths natural/cosmic cycles and overlays that model with the man made concerns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Defensive much?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap
For the sake of clarity. What is your position? What I'm picking up is a combination of apathy and rationalization. To be fair; maybe you are right and this will all blow over. Or it doesn't blow over but that's ok because homo sapiens are resilient. Maybe you just are feeling uncomfortable right now and are doing your best to shift the conversation in another direction like stoned monkeys throwing shit at a prius.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap
My answer isn't black and white, because it's not a simple question. I'm pragmatic. I do what I'm capable of doing. I try not to be ignorant of what the impact my choices have on others and myself. I'm also selfish enough to want to enjoy a certain lifestyle. I'm a realist in that I know I'm living like a king compared to a tribesman in the heart of Africa, and that probably does harm the planet. I can live with that. What's wrong with rationalization?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I'd be thrilled if some research institute spent a bunch of years developing an ever developing model of the earth, the interplay of it's thousands of natural cycles, the further interplay of the cosmological motions of the earth within the solar system, and then added in the interplay of the thousands of things that mankind does that also contributes to environment changes. I think that would be some awesome data to check out and base some decisions on. What we have now is more akin to "A study on the effect of changing temperatures in a bubble in some guy's living room" and then we have non scientists claiming that study has significance.
Do I believe in man made global warming? Sure. Do I think it's a big concern for humankind? Maybe? Maybe not. That's not apathy. It's just pragmatism. Is there a lot of point in worrying about it? For who? How do you balance the Chinese peasant thrilled to be earning a living wage working in a waste producing factory with the twenty year old guy living in his parent's basement wringing his hands because he's concerned about global warming for some indefinite reason he can't quite pin down. Do I believe that markets, manufacturing efficiency, and profits will drive innovation? Do I think that government grants to profiteering researchers will drive innovation? Nope, I'm a moderate, the answer is somewhere in the middle. So, I get to piss off both sides of the debate. Just because I'm pissing you off, it doesn't mean I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum.
So if a report came out that said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap
"The expected changes in climate are based on our understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat. Both this fundamental understanding of the physics of greenhouse gases and fingerprint studies show that natural causes alone are inadequate to explain the recent observed changes in climate. Natural causes include variations in the Sun’s output and in Earth’s orbit around the Sun, volcanic eruptions, and internal fluctuations in the climate system (such as El Niño and La Niña). ... Only when models include human influences on the composition of the atmosphere are the resulting temperature changes consistent with observed changes."
You would be pretty psyched?
Nope. You're not there yet. I already believe the reports that take these things into account. I want to see the grand model that ties it all together and spits out vaguely predictable future results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Trust me.. you won't even come close.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Typical liberal... you like to preach it without being force to practice it.
It's like we are watching you turn into Backlash before our eyes. Posting nonsense.Quote:
Tu quoque /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/,[1] (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented[2] whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, such behavior does not invalidate the position presented.
I own 2 energy conservation companies. I can cover your and everyone else on this message board carbon footprint... many times over.Quote:
Are you personally fighting global warming or not? You believe in good stewardship and say you're doing more to combat climate change than most people then you also say that you don't believe in it. What is it? You believe in it or don't you? You think it requires attention or not? You've got a couple wires crossed somewhere, I'm just trying to help you get it sorted out.
Still dodging the questions aren't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Quote:
Are you personally fighting global warming or not? You believe in good stewardship and say you're doing more to combat climate change than most people then you also say that you don't believe in it. What is it? You believe in it or don't you? You think it requires attention or not? You've got a couple wires crossed somewhere, I'm just trying to help you get it sorted out.
I agree that pragmatism is the name of the game but not with the idea that you are a moderate. After all, it's not like we're talking about drinking Iced Tea or Hot Tea and settling on Room Temp. Tea just to appease everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap
Fortunately, I have no desire for your affirmation of my beliefs. Did that tea statement make sense in your head? No don't answer, I'm off to the productive portion of my day.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I forgive you. Go in peace and may your next girlfriend shop at Whole Foods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap
So you are a lazy Arab?Quote:
Originally Posted by RojoDisco
Which part of energy conservation are you having difficulty in understanding?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Let me boil it down to simplistic terms that even someone like you can understand:
*I do far more than my part being environmentally responsible because I believe it's the right thing to do. And I make money at it.
*I do not believe man is playing the main role in global warming (or global cooling, depending on what's trending at the time)
But, speaking of dodging questions: What are YOU doing, being the vocal voice for global warming on this forum? Exactly how are you combating this global crisis??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Your C.V. is suspect but that's not the question is it? You talk about how you do so much to stop global warming yet you don't even believe in climate change. If climate change is fake then why are you worried about being a good steward?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Just because some doesn't believe in man made climate change, doesn't mean they want to live in a polluted world.
Are you retarded more than usual?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I never said I'm doing so much to stop global warming. That's you reading into something that isn't there.
I said I own 2 energy conservation companies.
The only thing suspect in this thread is if your IQ is above or below 50.
LIES! Everyone knows Conservatives want a polluted world, otherwise they would buy into man made climate change!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Racist, flat Earther.
What PB is saying is that he's just like Al Gore- cynically exploiting a major public hoax for dollars. Al Gore is his hero, and he writes fan mail every day to the Gorester.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Here's where you said it. Then you got challenged on it and changed your tune. It's typical of you though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Quote:
If I honestly believed in man made global warming, I would do far more than I currently do... and I'm already doing more than most of the man made global warming crowd on this message board.
Incorrect and a really, really stupid conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
I'm not doing this to stop man made global warming. I'm doing it to make money and to help others save money.
I would point out the obvious differences in those two sentences to you that even the dumbest high school drop out could figure out.. but I think we all know you still wouldn't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Once again though.. I see you can't come up with anything you are doing to combat the environmental crisis you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
Just like the gorester! Gore PB gore PB gore!Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
http://www.darkpolitricks.com/wp-con...ull-retard.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
He will never answer you PB, because the answer is.... nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I like your new sig.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
So apparently Dems think it's a great idea to "burn the midnight oil" to promote "climate change" But think it's not a great idea to propose a bill on it during an election year.
Talk about not really putting your money where your mouth is.
The really funny part.. I heard from 2 different sources (CNN and Fox) that the reason they did this was to get 100 mill in campaign funds.
Those dastardly Democrats!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
So what have you done lately to fight climate change Cwolff?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Post more on the PC?
I heard that proposing bills that fail might not be a good strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
I use recycled bong water to smoke my organic weed. Puff on that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Citizens of California rejoice at your initiative to conserve and recycle water.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Animal Kingdom spokesperson "Cheetah" delivers sharp rebuke to anthroprogenic climate change deniers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aWmM5kfBNQ
Friggin' silicon hippies. Why can't they just spend their money on yachts and shit like good rich people.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...nge/?hpt=po_c2
Quote:
Washington (CNN) – President Barack Obama is getting some help from the country's tech giants in his effort to show Americans how climate change will affect their communities.
The private sector commitments from firms like Google and Microsoft come at the same time the White House announced Wednesday a new government initiative to make public data related to climate more accessible to the public, with the goal of spurring better preparation and prevention for eventual changes to Americans' environment.
It's hilarious that you believe that they do it for "the climate" and not for future considerations.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Everyone should totally be as bitter and cynical as you. That'd help America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
It's better than being blissfully ignorant of the entire process like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
If all I have to suffer is one bitter old pessimist who never learned how not to insult the people he didn't agree with, I'm doing okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Insults while saying insults are bad. I like your style.
Always amusing to see your frequent obliviousness to your own hypocrisy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
That's all Poor Bastard has. You take his insults and he'll feel left out because he'll have nothing to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Yea.. WB really took my insults like a man there.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
More fuel for the climate change fire.
http://news.msn.com/world/global-war...un-report-saysQuote:
Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that issued the 32-volume, 2,610-page report here early Monday, told The Associated Press: "it is a call for action." Without reductions in emissions, he said, impacts from warming "could get out of control."
...
"I can't think of a better word for what it means to society than the word 'risk,'" said Virginia Burkett of the U.S. Geological Survey, one of the study's main authors. She calls global warming "maybe one of the greatest known risks we face."
How many copies do you think the UN printed of that report? Do you think they used recycled paper?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
You're letting your emotions get the best of you. It's clouding you ability to reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
All I do is reason. But I've since given up trying to reason with idealogues.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Leave my steak alone, you fucking twats.
As part of its plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration is targeting the dairy industry to reduce methane emissions in their operations.
This comes despite falling methane emission levels across the economy since 1990.
The White House has proposed cutting methane emissions from the dairy industry by 25 percent by 2020. Although U.S. agriculture only accounts for about 9 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, it makes up a sizeable portion of methane emissions — which is a very potent greenhouse gas.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/28/wh...#ixzz2xYQQV6Jd
Your steaks don't come from dairy farms.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
http://media.giphy.com/media/Ne7aenG4oM1Py/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
The debate is OVER.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
98% of all the smart scientists say that man causes global warming, er.. global cooling, er... global climate change.
Get the fuck back in line.
More positive proof that you still don't understand the topic. Come on man. It's not that hard. You sound like the Donald questioning global warming because the east coast had a cold Winter. Do you really want to echo the Donald?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
You know.. I always thought winters were SUPPOSED to be Cold.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Face it.. as of right now, they can say anything they want, and be covered in any eventuality.
They say... "The Earth is warming.. but that doesn't mean your area will be warmer, it may be cooler. Weather patterns will change, but you may not see a change. Blizzards the likes we haven't seen for decades may hit, but maybe not in your area. But trust us, this IS happening, we just won't say WHERE it will happen, because we are not 100% sure where it will happen exactly, we just know somewhere at some time, it will"
It's like getting a Nobel Prize for saying that there will be more Earthquakes, and some may happen somewhere at some point. So we should be prepared.
The best part is when all these Global Warming "religious" fanatics predict something... it doesn't happen, and then they go.. "that doesn't disprove what I said".
Yet people like Cwolff think Religious people are nuts for saying something similar about God.
You do not understand the claims of climate change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Yes. That is exactly what I was saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I've already told you: WB has the market cornered on making shit up and hoping no one calls him on it. Let's leave that to him... it's all he has here.
Why don't you just continue to be you: Post any idiotic Democrat talking points you can find and defend it no matter what. That is your thing.
Is it? I mean, I understand why there are variations in weather patterns. I'm not the guy who see it's snowing and says "HA, So much for global warming". Are you? Either way it's not a democrat or republican issue. In this folder you should probably attack me for defending the best understandings that science has today about climate change. That'd be more accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
But...but...but you ignored all of my facts from NOAA and the IPCC, the graphs and models and science that clearly show changes in CO2 has nothing to do with global warming. You are the sworn enemy of facts when you accept the IPCC report at face value without checking the data for yourself. And the data shows LAND USE and the Urban Heat Island Effect have had more effect on climate data, but not actual climate, than anything to this day. As for actual changes in the climate, well shit, it's nothing special going on that hasn't gone on long before we were an industrialized planet. LOOK AT ICE CORE SAMPLES!!!! GOD DAMN IT!!! WHY THE FUCK DO WE REHASH THIS EVERY OTHER WEEK?!Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
We didn't ignore your graphs we refuted them and told you to read the report which addresses your concerns.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
So, you admit you simply assumed as much and put words into my mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Fantastic start to your rehabilitation. Step #1 is usually the toughest.
It's not? It's widely supported by Democrats and not widely supported by Republicans.Quote:
Either way it's not a democrat or republican issue.
It is a political issue.. which is why I'm very skeptical.
When you post, this is what I read.Quote:
In this folder you should probably attack me for defending the Democrats at all costs, no matter what. That'd be more accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
http://ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/pr_wg2/140330_pr_wgII_spm_en.pdf
Maybe you can use more IPCC reports to support your claims:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report today that says the effects of climate change are already occurring on all continents and across the oceans. The world, in many cases, is ill-prepared for risks from a changing climate. The report also concludes that there are opportunities to respond to such risks, though the risks will be
difficult to manage with high levels of warming."
Maybe.
Edit: Here's the VERY FIRST LINE of the report: "Human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems (Figure SPM.1)."
I bet there's something in there you can use to prove that human interference with the climate system is not occurring, and climate change poses no risks for human and natural systems (Figure NLTW, vol 1: Bullshit).
I think I'm starting to believe this IPCC stuff on global warming... and it's about to get SERIOUS!!
I mean, if you can't help the planet for yourself.. think about the skiers. THE SKIERS!!
Who wants a global surge of golfers, boaters and beach goers, all at the expense of the poor skiers.
THE FUCKING HUMANITY!!!
They are really swinging for the fences with this stuff.
Homerun I say.
Homerun.
That's my point. You take the report at face value without pulling data yourself then you look like an assclown.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
You found me out, I'm not a scientist. I'm not a mechanic either, it's why I bring my car to the shop when it needs fixing. I do my due diligence- with my car, I'll take it to two or three mechanics until I find one I trust. If 97/100 scientists tell me there's something wrong, yeah, I'll take them at face value. Why? Because it's their job and I don't think everyone in the world is a liar out to get me. Some people are, sure... but I play the odds, and MOST aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
I assume, from how much you must know of the world and your sweeping rejection of all that scientific analysis, that you have several dozen Ph.D's and are a qualified, published climate scientist yourself? I'll listen to what you have to say if that's the case. Otherwise, you're just some guy who wants to puff his chest out as an anti-establishment contrarian who would still scream about those damnable scientist liars from the rooftop as his house is flooding.
<sigh>Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Any issue can be claimed/used by politicians. This does not suggest that the issue is up for debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
97/100 scientists....Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
http://media.giphy.com/media/ud1XSljsl4DqE/giphy.gif
And it's funny too, because the IPCC reports aren't compiled by Scientists anyway, they're compiled by about 600 administrative weirdos who are forced to translate all the science however they see fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Alright, I perused your silly link. Let's take a sampling of the "Ph.D's" on the list.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
First: Earl M.J. Aagaard is a Professor of Biology at Southern Adventist University, a creationist who worked on an audio book called Seventh Day : Revelations from the Lost Pages of History. Intelligent design guy.
Roger L. Aamodt, PhD- a cancer researcher.
Hamed K. Abbas, PhD- works on food safety issues.
I could go on, but upon further examination, looks like someone else already had this idea and did a sampling of the petitioners.
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/200...l-a-consensus/
"Of 60 samples (including 54 phD’s), there were a grand total of zero publications behind the sampled signatories that were relevant to climate or climate change. None has specific background in meteorology, climatology, oceanography, etc and just two with a geology background (including one who is now deceased)."
Here's another dead one, maybe 5th on the signer's list with a ph.d: Ursula K. Abbott.
http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/mem...bottUrsula.htm
I'm betting the work of an 85 year old animal husbandry technician gave us a lot of insight into climate change. And she died 2 years ago.
Let's just see how far I get, actually. I've got some free time tonight. Going right down the list, looking only at the Ph.D's.
Refaat A. Abdel-Malek, PhD, an engineer. http://investing.businessweek.com/re...Global,%20Inc.
Philip H Abelson, PhD- Nuclear physicist, died in 2004. Sounded like a pretty smart guy though.
https://library.gl.ciw.edu/GLHistory/pgabelson.html
Earl Arthur Abrahamson, PhD- a DuPont chemist.
(pausing for a second, here's the form used to verify credentials by this petition: http://www.petitionproject.org/GW_Petition.pdf
Too funny...
Continuing on. we have:
Paul Abramson, Ph.D- a psychologist who teaches human sexuality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Abramson
Ahmed E. Aburahmah, PhD- works with the San Diego Police Department as a traffic engineer.
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Ahmed-Aburahmah/247224722
Daniel T. Achord, PhD- President at Achord Consulting LLC
"ACHORD Consulting is a computer consulting firm for individuals and small business. We offer customized care for your hardware and software needs, including troubleshooting and repair for your computers, peripherals, and networking. We analyze your specific requirements, recommend hardware, software and training. "
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dan-achord/4/375/115
Clearly, these are the 3% of scientists in that aren't part of the 97%. Who compiles all of the IPCC data for their reports? Look up their qualifications next! And then compare.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Robert K. Adair, PhD- nuclear physicist, and ding ding ding first one I can find reference to who may have worked on climate science.
"Later, in his retirement, he studied the effects of extremely low frequency (weak) electromagnetic fields on human health and among other responsibilities served on the Committee of the American Physical Society (APS) established to investigate the APS Statement on Global Warming in 2007, which was not without its own internal controversy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_...28physicist%29
Brian D. Adam, PhD, agricultural economist. Pertinent article: "Whole-chain traceability, is it possible to trace your hamburger to a particular steer, a U. S. perspective." I've always wanted to put a face to my burgers.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brian_Adam/
Bryant L Adams, PhD- board member of a pharmacological company?
http://www.zoominfo.com/s/#!search/p...rgetid=profile
http://www.healcorp.net/
Daniel Otis Adams, PhD- mechanical engineer
https://mech.utah.edu/people/faculty...ams-professor/
http://mech.utah.edu/files/2012/01/D...1-200x300.jpeg
Would this be the sound of backpedaling?Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
Well, I assume that since they're publishing papers on climate science, they're some kind of climate scientists. But you're right, I'll do that next.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
Gail D. Adams, PhD Another DEADER!! lol Medical physics, radiation oncology.
http://www.jacmp.org/index.php/jacmp...File/3413/2000
So I've done... let's see, 15? so far, and three dead. I'm just going down the fucking list, folks. Can't make this shit up.
Here's an article about group that calls itself the NIPCC. Some of the points and counterpoints are pasted below along with the link. One thing I noticed is that they are really harping on CO2 though the global warming research seems to have moved past CO2 to include many other gases and situations in general. You'll see that even though the IPCC claim doesn't mention CO2 the NIPCC seems to hit on it in almost every rebuttal.
The guy who wrote is President of the Heartland Institute which is a Chicago based think tank promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, and free markets so buyer beware.
IPCC: “Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges.”
NIPCC: “Flood frequency and severity in many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding.”
IPCC: “Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.”
NIPCC: “There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.
IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”
NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”
IPCC: “Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.”
NIPCC: “Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations benefit plant growth-promoting microorganisms that help land plants overcome drought conditions, a potentially negative aspect of future climate change. Continued atmospheric CO2 enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies.”
IPCC: “Systemic risks due to extreme [weather] events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services.”
NIPCC: “There is no support for the model-based projection that precipitation in a warming world becomes more variable and intense. In fact, some observational data suggest just the opposite, and provide support for the proposition that precipitation responds more to cyclical variations in solar activity.”
IPCC: “Risk of loss of marine ecosystems and the services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.”
NIPCC: “Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels do not pose a significant threat to aquatic life. Many aquatic species have shown considerable tolerance to temperatures and CO2 values predicted for the next few centuries, and many have demonstrated a likelihood of positive responses in empirical studies. Any projected adverse impacts of rising temperatures or declining seawater and freshwater pH levels (“acidification”) will be largely mitigated through phenotypic adaptation or evolution during the many decades to centuries it is expected to take for pH levels to fall.”
IPCC: “Risk of loss of terrestrial ecosystems and the services they provide for terrestrial livelihoods.”
NIPCC: “Terrestrial ecosystems have thrived throughout the world as a result of warming temperatures and rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Empirical data pertaining to numerous animal species, including amphibians, birds, butterflies, other insects, reptiles, and mammals, indicate global warming and its myriad ecological effects tend to foster the expansion and proliferation of animal habitats, ranges, and populations, or otherwise have no observable impacts one way or the other. Multiple lines of evidence indicate animal species are adapting, and in some cases evolving, to cope with climate change of the modern era.”
IPCC: “Risk of mortality, morbidity, and other harms during periods of extreme heat, particularly for vulnerable urban populations.”
NIPCC: “A modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperature-related events. More lives are saved by global warming via the amelioration of cold-related deaths than those lost under excessive heat. Global warming will have a negligible influence on human morbidity and the spread of infectious diseases, a phenomenon observed in virtually all parts of the world.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...imate-science/
Maybe it's like the Latter Day Saints. They baptize them after they die.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
George Baker Adams, PhD- "business lead" at Merck- whatever that means
http://www.linkedin.com/in/wolfheel06
Gerald J. Adams, PhD- math prof at Columbia College, Chicago
https://www.colum.edu/Academics/Scie...ulty/Adams.php
Harold Elwood Adams, PhD- chemical dependency counselor, and guess WHAT??? ANOTHER DEAD GUY.
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/new...&pid=147568682
Someone ought to alert the voter fraud authorities. Too many dead folks on this petition.
Easy to sign someone's name to a friggin' internet petition, particularly if they'll never notice because they've been in a coffin for a few years.
I'm done for now. We're at a 20% mortality rate on this petition; if we extrapolate, that equals 1800 dead ph.d's in irrelevant fields.
I'd honestly suggest publishing this. It'd make very interesting reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
No, this would be:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubU-dB8B-94
Pretty catchy.
What if we're looking at this the wrong way? What if... Big Climate Change is striking back?Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Fuckin' globalization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Braaaaaaaaains... also, no such thing as anthropogenic climate chaaaaaaaaange
The methane gas produced by cattle was brought up, but just how many methane producing animals did we kill while settling this country? And how does that compare to the number of cattle and other such animals that we currently have today?
We slaughtered the buffalo and replaced them with the much more inefficient (ie unsuited to this climate) cow, and did so by several orders of magnitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
I can't believe people are still trying to deny it. The debate was over a long time ago. Where does this refusal to believe reality come from? It's immature if not insane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Yeah... I'm not counting the dead ones.
http://media.giphy.com/media/ud1XSljsl4DqE/giphy.gif
As soon as they provide me with the "earths operating manual" that they seem to be the only ones to have in their possession, so I am able to see the correct operating earth temps. I will then consider this scam on humanity, until then keep your hippy tree hugging hands out of my wallet!Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Gimme your money, you bible-thumping flat-earther!Quote:
Originally Posted by Laviticas
I can understand debating the outcome, severity and practical solutions. I can't understand the refusal to believe it. Some of the things they say are correct. For example a really bad volcanic eruption could disrupt our civilization more than all our cars and faster. We also are incapable of modeling and accurately predicting what slight changes here and there will do on a global scale. Those are fair criticisms but no excuse to throw the whole thing overboard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Another problem the deniers face is that if we all ever accept that climate change is a real thing then we'll have to get serious about doing something. That's going to take gobs of cash and a rather complete change in lifestyle. I think this is what scares the deniers more than anything. Right now we can say "well everyone does it and there haven't been any problems yet."
The way I see it we'll be better off trying to do something about it now and being incorrect than ignoring it and dealing the worst possible consequences. As a species we are great at recognizing immediate threats and reacting. Fight of flight and all that. The longer term threats that sneak up on us over time exist in a blind spot.
Nope. We're coming for your wallet and taking all your money. Just wait. Obama's about to launch his grand master socialist dictator plan and the first person he's going to steal from is you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Laviticas
Say every person in the US becomes green, does it matter? Look at China.
This is definitely an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Thing is, even if you're doomed, do you just lay down and accept it, or you try your best to do something about it? Do you lie down and let the bullet kill you or do you take a swing at the shooter?
Might as well give it the ol' college try.
Actually, we have more now then then in the US, but it's not much more to be honest. The real thing is there are more worldwide. Can anyone say... "China Grows Larger!" (I miss that Game)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
Few numbers.. one scientist estimated that the Buffalo herds were around 60 million when Columbus landed.
http://www.sheppardsoftware.com/usaw...acts-USA14.htm
No one knows how many bison there were, but the naturalist, Ernest Thompson Seton, estimated their numbers at sixty million when Columbus landed.
http://www.cattlerange.com/cattle-gr...e-numbers.html
87,730,000 Cows in all States.
So.. about 50% more cows then buffalo.
"China Grow Larger!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Meatless Mondays... it's a thing, and it would help quite a bit. And is it really that big of a deal to not eat meat one fucking day a week?
I don't personally believe that we do anymore harm to our little rock then the cosmos. We are still in what is called the Holocene extinction period.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs