Climate Change Report

Printable View

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page

03-31-2014, 05:13 PM
Parkbandit

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwolff

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?

So, you admit you simply assumed as much and put words into my mouth.

Fantastic start to your rehabilitation. Step #1 is usually the toughest.

Quote:

Either way it's not a democrat or republican issue.

It's not? It's widely supported by Democrats and not widely supported by Republicans.

It is a political issue.. which is why I'm very skeptical.

Quote:

In this folder you should probably attack me for defending the Democrats at all costs, no matter what. That'd be more accurate.

When you post, this is what I read.
03-31-2014, 06:29 PM
waywardgs

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay

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?!

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).
03-31-2014, 06:51 PM
Parkbandit

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.
03-31-2014, 06:58 PM
NinjasLeadTheWay

Quote:

Originally Posted by waywardgs

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).

That's my point. You take the report at face value without pulling data yourself then you look like an assclown.
03-31-2014, 07:14 PM
waywardgs

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay

That's my point. You take the report at face value without pulling data yourself then you look like an assclown.

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.

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.
03-31-2014, 07:16 PM
NinjasLeadTheWay

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.

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>

http://www.petitionproject.org/
03-31-2014, 07:18 PM
Latrinsorm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

It is a political issue.. which is why I'm very skeptical.

Any issue can be claimed/used by politicians. This does not suggest that the issue is up for debate.
03-31-2014, 07:23 PM
Parkbandit

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.

97/100 scientists....

http://media.giphy.com/media/ud1XSljsl4DqE/giphy.gif
03-31-2014, 07:25 PM
NinjasLeadTheWay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

97/100 scientists....

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.
03-31-2014, 07:32 PM
waywardgs

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay

<sigh>

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Alright, I perused your silly link. Let's take a sampling of the "Ph.D's" on the list.

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)."

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page