Recruiting forum off topic thread (merged)

[Vols4us]

The real deniers of climate change are those that attempt to build a case for their dire predictions by using distortions, conjecture, flawed cause and effect, and limited incomplete data of only the past couple hundred years. They ignore their own flawed conjecture of existence being present for billions of years in their representations. They then cross over the insanity line by stating the representations as facts. Again, if the scientific representations made yesterday are true that Einstein predicted 100 years ago - then many of their "scientific truths" are based on ridiculous miscalculations. Which has become the norm for many in the scientific community seeking fame, power, and greed - which are basic human failings as described in the Word.

There has not been one human born that can understand the smallest part of the mind of Yahweh unless you classify Jesus as one - which is also not correct. Ever. It is the height of foolishness to make representations to the world that they do or that there is no creator with all they see just appearing by some unknown and unproven explosion of nothing becoming something billions of years ago. Yet, there they are and have been in ever science text book in every public school in America and around the world. Conclusions and theories drawn from flawed data and understanding restated to the public as facts. Disgusting and evil personified.

 

[volssam]

Also to tear down the alarmists saying the ice caps would melt and the sea levels would rise...

The ice in Antarctica has actually grown. Not shrank.

 

[Vols4us]

Also to tear down the alarmists saying the ice caps would melt and the sea levels would rise...

The ice in Antarctica has actually grown. Not shrank.

But, but there was that polar bear floating on the small patch of ice...

 

[volssam]

Well to play Devil's advocate here, the University of Alabama did the study.

I know. I know.


Me after seeing that in the story:

.


But I still posted it.
And then here I am after you calling that out:

.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Tennessee is officially the fifth state to call for an article 5 convention of the states as of 2/4/16. Making me proud. Only 29 more and we're in business. The good news is it's already introduced to 33 more state legislations this year. Kudos to the State House for approving the Senate resolution.

I think this is further evidence that people believe Washington is so far gone that it is beyond repair from within. State governments see that the only way to repair it is to take it over through Constitutional amendment. It will take decades to achieve it though.

 

[Glitch]

Yes. There is a hole in the O-zone.

No. Man did not create it. It has always been there. Without it there would be no life on Earth.

Yes. There is "Global Warming" (If that is what you choose to call it), just like there is Global Cooling. The O-zone is what causes that.

The hole in the O-zone expands and contracts. We are talking over 100's of thousands to millions of years, for any kind of significant change, with slight fluctuations through the process.

The hole contracting....is what causes Ice Ages. Smaller hole. Less ultra violet rays from the sun....=COLD.

As the hole expands, temperatures get warmer. More Ultra violet rays get through. There was a time when the North and South poles were warm enough for Palm Trees to grow there.

It's called Science folks. Don't be sheep to the idiots trying to get your vote, read ....and study for yourselves.

Facts: They just confuse most people.

 

[BJHSVol]

I think I'll side with NASA on this one

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

[volssam]

I think I'll side with NASA on this one

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

First of all, I commend you, BJHS.
Thank you for actually bringing something to the table instead of just stating talking points.

As far as the legitimacy of the info in the link you posted, I would counter with:

1) NASA is a government organization. The same expanding government that wants more and more and more control over our lives. So I would say that They are not unbiased.

2) in the link you posted, NASA was pretty beholden to the "fact" that Antarctica was
diminishing and that that is evidence of global warming.... Yet check this out from November of 2015. So, what? 3 months ago...3 months ago today actually. Ha.

Between October 2014 and November 2015, NASA released two separate studies, both showing that ice in Antarctica is growing faster than it is melting. In May 2015, Antarctic ice was at a record high level.Nov 12, 2015

3.) With an issue like this, both sides can find "experts" to back their side of the issue. For example, Here is one on the opposite side:

John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.

Instead, what 'little evidence' there is for rising global temperatures points to a 'natural phenomenon' within a developing eco-system.

In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: "The ocean is not rising significantly.


"The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number.

"Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).

"I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid."

Climate expert William Happer, from Princeton University, supported Mr Coleman's claims.

He added: "No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production.

"The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science."

The 2010 InterAcademy Council review was launched after the IPCC's hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

4.) also I already posted some info earlier that shows data that it's not warming

5.) So I guess it's what you choose to believe. And in America, we can have differing opinions.

6.) I don't know that I can recall all the details. But it was something similar to... This whole climate change council Obama and other country leaders had recently, the changes they were setting forward to try to get everyone to adopt, over the next 75 years it would barely affect the temperature at all. So I would put forth that if you do buy into global warming and if you buy into that it's human made.... If changing our culture and society and our energy would barely make any difference at all over 75 years, is it worth the higher energy costs and inconvenience of making such changes?

 

[Hubbard]

If we don't do something soon, the temp in the US is just going to get hotter . . . until September then it will cool down again and football will be back.

 

[BJHSVol]

First of all, I commend you, BJHS.
Thank you for actually bringing something to the table instead of just stating talking points.

As far as the legitimacy of the info in the link you posted, I would counter with:

1) NASA is a government organization. The same expanding government that wants more and more and more control over our lives. So I would say that They are not unbiased.

2) in the link you posted, NASA was pretty beholden to the "fact" that Antarctica was
diminishing and that that is evidence of global warming.... Yet check this out from November of 2015. So, what? 3 months ago...3 months ago today actually. Ha.


3.) With an issue like this, both sides can find "experts" to back their side of the issue. For example, Here is one on the opposite side:


4.) also I already posted some info earlier that shows data that it's not warming

5.) So I guess it's what you choose to believe. And in America, we can have differing opinions.

6.) I don't know that I can recall all the details. But it was something similar to... This whole climate change council Obama and other country leaders had recently, the changes they were setting forward to try to get everyone to adopt, over the next 75 years it would barely affect the temperature at all. So I would put forth that if you do buy into global warming and if you buy into that it's human made.... If changing our culture and society and our energy would barely make any difference at all over 75 years, is it worth the higher energy costs and inconvenience of making such changes?

Definitely agree with you on 5, and some of 6. I would say my beliefs about it are similar to Gov. Christie. I think it's a real thing, but that it's also been overstated and currently not some type of "dire" situation and the planet is doomed.

I would love to see some movement away from dependence of fossil fuels, but that's more from an economic and political lense, not environmental. I would love to see an increase in nuclear power, but I don't see that happening anytime soon

 

[volssam]

Definitely agree with you on 5, and some of 6. I would say my beliefs about it are similar to Gov. Christie. I think it's a real thing, but that it's also been overstated and currently not some type of "dire" situation and the planet is doomed.

I would love to see some movement away from dependence of fossil fuels, but that's more from an economic and political lense, not environmental. I would love to see an increase in nuclear power, but I don't see that happening anytime soon

Thanks for being kind and calm.

Pretty much, I am for anything that helps us become completely independent and self-providing with energy as a nation. And for anything that keeps energy prices low.

I want it kept privately-funded though. Stop subsidies. Keep the government out of it. Let the market do its thing

 

[OptimusPrimerib]

Also to tear down the alarmists saying the ice caps would melt and the sea levels would rise...

The ice in Antarctica has actually grown. Not shrank.

The sea-based ice has gotten slightly wider but is losing its land-based ice at an accelerating rate.

 

[BJHSVol]

Thanks for being kind and calm.

Pretty much, I am for anything that helps us become completely independent and self-providing with energy as a nation. And for anything that keeps energy prices low.

I want it kept privately-funded though. Stop subsidies. Keep the government out of it. Let the market do its thing

Same to you.

I have mixed feelings about subsidies. I'm against them for the most part because I don't think they are ever implemented correctly, but I can also see value in how it could help kick-start some of the energy alternatives. With how much CEOs are beholden to stock holders, I think they're handcuffed from investing too much into long term plans and that slows progress

 

[Skullbone]

Good stewardship and general cleanliness are good and necessary things, however, the environmentalists or de-growthers as they honestly used to refer to themselves by have taken these common sense principles and perverted them. Make no mistake, the heart of these groups and movements are anti-human at their core. They honestly view human habitation to be an invasive foreign occupation on Earth that must be severely limited if not outright eliminated. I can prove how environmentalists are responsible for millions of human deaths with only two examples.

#1 DDT: DDT was used to kill mosquitos and effectively eradicated malaria in the US and most of the 1st world. Without it we'd still have malaria here today. DDT was later banned by environmentalists in power despite newer research indicating the negative effects alleged were grossly exaggerated or outright wrong. As a result, the entire globe banned DDT which consequentially led to the unnecessary deaths of millions of human beings who would likely have lived were they allowed to use the same tools we had to eliminate malaria years ago. Today over one million people die from malaria each year, mostly children under five. To top it off, the lady whose junk science was used to ban DDT now has a historical landmark monument registration for her house. Should be named Dr. Death's House. But, don't worry, Sean Penn is going to save the world from malaria with holey mosquito nets. pfft.
#2 CAFE standards: Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards were enacted in 1975 to combat reliance on foreign oil following the Arab Oil Embargo. The Embargo ended but the standard lived on. Today CAFE standards are supported mostly by environmentalists who think it can be used to force Americans to use less oil and move toward mass transportation and green energy. As a result car companies are forced to meet more stringent requirements for fuel efficiency every year whether the technology dictates that or not. The only way to get more fuel mileage without sound technology is to make lighter vehicles. That's why cars are getting smaller and you see less steel and more plastic and aluminum. It is an absolute fact that the lighter the vehicle the more likely death is to occur in an accident. 40,000 people die every year due to car crashes. It is a fact that many of them would have survived had their vehicle been heavier built.

 

[Vols4us]

"It is a fact that many of them would have survived had their vehicle been heavier built."

Which is why there are more trucks, SUV's and crossovers being purchased by the public every year. It is a self defeating regulation. The markets will reward better mileage vehicles when the price of fuel is higher than when it is lower. In urban areas smaller vehicles may benefit more. However, most of America is not urban and people travel longer distances where comfort and safety are more important priorities if they can afford the fuel. I don't know anybody that likes being blown off the road by the seemingly millions of tractor trailer rigs going everywhere.

 

[JRVFL]

Yes. There is a hole in the O-zone.

No. Man did not create it. It has always been there. Without it there would be no life on Earth.

Yes. There is "Global Warming" (If that is what you choose to call it), just like there is Global Cooling. The O-zone is what causes that.

The hole in the O-zone expands and contracts. We are talking over 100's of thousands to millions of years, for any kind of significant change, with slight fluctuations through the process.

The hole contracting....is what causes Ice Ages. Smaller hole. Less ultra violet rays from the sun....=COLD.

As the hole expands, temperatures get warmer. More Ultra violet rays get through. There was a time when the North and South poles were warm enough for Palm Trees to grow there.

It's called Science folks. Don't be sheep to the idiots trying to get your vote, read ....and study for yourselves.

I'm going to trust the overwhelmingly majority of experts on whether climate change is driven by human activity...

Not trying to be rude. Just genuinely curious... how do you ignore that?

Let's keep it civil. Go Vols.
The Economist explains: Why scientists are (almost) certain that climate change is man-made | The Economist

 

[Skullbone]

Origin of the ol' "97% of climate scientists" nonsense:
"Short story shorter: 97% comes from a survey conducted for a thesis by a University of Illinois graduate student who, having received 3,146 responses to a two-question online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, eventually identified 77 “experts” of which 75 (97%) were found to agree with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. There’s no word as yet on the identity and views of the other 10,180. "

Read more: Articles: Steyn puts Warmists in the Dock
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[volssam]

I'm going to trust the overwhelmingly majority of experts on whether climate change is driven by human activity...

Not trying to be rude. Just genuinely curious... how do you ignore that?

Let's keep it civil. Go Vols.
The Economist explains: Why scientists are (almost) certain that climate change is man-made | The Economist

This is gonna be my last post for a while as I have to go and keep my four young kids while my wife gets a girls night.

But I just read through the article you linked. I found it very unconvincing, personally. I didn't see anything conclusive there at all. That's my opinion though.

Also there is some disputing information out there on just how many scientists actually agree with the "science" these global warming activists are trying to push. And that the amount of scientists that agree is much exaggerated.
There are a whole lot of scientists who disagree that there is such a thing as man-made climate change.

Again, I'm sure we could both find several articles stating each sides of the issue. It is what it is. People are going to have to study it themselves and decide on their own what they believe.

I personally believe it's a way for those in power to have more control over everyone and everything and/or it's a money-making scheme.

Now I do believe there are some/maybe many out there who are true believers in it. I just don't see the evidence to back it up.

I find it interesting how scientists keep changing their claims and their predictions when their claims and predictions turn out wrong.

Also people act like scientists are infallible. They are wrong all the time. Look at how many things they change their stance and recommendations on over time. Not just with this climate change stuff. But Things like what is healthy and unhealthy. Evolution/universe claims. Etc

 

[JRVFL]

This is gonna be my last post for a while as I have to go and keep my four young kids while my wife gets a girls night.

But I just read through the article you linked. I found it very unconvincing, personally. I didn't see anything conclusive there at all. That's my opinion though.

Also there is some disputing information out there on just how many scientists actually agree with the "science" these global warming activists are trying to push. And that the amount of scientists that agree is much exaggerated.
There are a whole lot of scientists who disagree that there is such a thing as man-made climate change.

Again, I'm sure we could both find several articles stating each sides of the issue. It is what it is. People are going to have to study it themselves and decide on their own what they believe.

I personally believe it's a way for those in power to have more control over everyone and everything and/or it's a money-making scheme.

Now I do believe there are some/maybe many out there who are true believers in it. I just don't see the evidence to back it up.

I find it interesting how scientists keep changing their claims and their predictions when their claims and predictions turn out wrong.

Also people act like scientists are infallible. They are wrong all the time. Look at how many things they change their stance and recommendations on over time.

Thanks for responding. I've never been able to pinpoint the other side. Appreciate you giving your reasoning. :hi:

 

[JRVFL]

Origin of the ol' "97% of climate scientists" nonsense:
"Short story shorter: 97% comes from a survey conducted for a thesis by a University of Illinois graduate student who, having received 3,146 responses to a two-question online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, eventually identified 77 “experts” of which 75 (97%) were found to agree with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. There’s no word as yet on the identity and views of the other 10,180. "

Read more: Articles: Steyn puts Warmists in the Dock
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Thanks for sharing. I'm gonna see if I can find any more recent numbers on any sort of consensus.

 

[JRVFL]

Origin of the ol' "97% of climate scientists" nonsense:
"Short story shorter: 97% comes from a survey conducted for a thesis by a University of Illinois graduate student who, having received 3,146 responses to a two-question online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, eventually identified 77 “experts” of which 75 (97%) were found to agree with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. There’s no word as yet on the identity and views of the other 10,180. "

Read more: Articles: Steyn puts Warmists in the Dock
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Although you can cherry-pick scientists on either side as the other poster suggested, I suppose we can only go with what we perceive as trustworthy and credible sources. Here's some more information I've found:

"Can natural phenomena explain all of today’s climatic changes? Scientists have found strong evidence that suggests anthropogenic causes, like the burning of fossil fuels, contribute to changes in our climate in addition to natural causes.

In 2014 the U.S. Global Change Research Program put out its third National Climate Assessment, which stated:

U.S. Global Change Research Program, May 2014: Long-term, independent records from weather stations, satellites, ocean buoys, tide gauges, and many other data sources all confirm that our nation [the United States], like the rest of the world, is warming. Precipitation patterns are changing, sea level is rising, the oceans are becoming more acidic, and the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events are increasing. Many lines of independent evidence demonstrate that the rapid warming of the past half-century is due primarily to human activities.

The 2014 National Climate Assessment was produced by “a team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee” and reviewed by “the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.”
The IPCC’s fifth assessment report also found evidence to support the existence of human-induced climate change. For example, the U.N. panel writes (see page 2): “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”

NASA’s website also cites collective and individual statements from a number of American and international scientific societies, academies and government agencies that all agree global warming and climate change are due, in part, to human actions. For example, in 2006 the Board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, publisher of the journal Science, said: “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.”

Cruz’s ‘Pseudoscientific’ Climate Claims

Personally, I'm not going to attempt to pick which side is "right" as I (along 99.999999% of us) am not qualified. That seems pretty ridiculous for any layman to make that kind of assertion.

Nevertheless, I feel it's willfully ignorant and reckless to brush aside the warnings of so many government and non-government organizations. As if any of us could be so confident that we "know better." How arrogant.

IMO, it's better to err on the side of caution given that we can only act on what we know now, coupled with the potential national security benefits of harnessing alternative energy.

 

[Glitch]

Humans pollute. I don't think anyone will deny that. It is important to be good stewards of the environment. However, there are numerous natural sources of pollution too. How do we stop volcanoes from polluting? Tax em?

Mount St. Helens top polluter - Technology & science - Science | NBC News

 

[Skullbone]

Scientist are lying if they tell you we can stop the Earth from warming or cooling when it wants to. It's BS. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It's what plants breathe. Currently the general agreement is that 95% of GHG (greenhouse gases) are caused by water vapor, and 99.999% of that is of natural origin. We can do little about it. Try as they may, the believers cannot legitimately explain why it was so hot in medieval times before the industrial revolution. It's all conjecture. Not to mention climategate. That sure doesn't give any fair person confidence in the very genesis of the entire theory. They want to de-populate and de-industrialize the world to combat something that very well may not be happening or may not have the catastrophic effects predicted. Meanwhile they get rich off of grants and donations from people who desire certain outcomes and pay only those scientists who produce those outcomes. Funk that. I just want to live the best life I can without some scientist telling me I can't set my thermostat where I want lest the boogey man get me.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

This is gonna be my last post for a while as I have to go and keep my four young kids while my wife gets a girls night.

But I just read through the article you linked. I found it very unconvincing, personally. I didn't see anything conclusive there at all. That's my opinion though.

Also there is some disputing information out there on just how many scientists actually agree with the "science" these global warming activists are trying to push. And that the amount of scientists that agree is much exaggerated.
There are a whole lot of scientists who disagree that there is such a thing as man-made climate change.

Again, I'm sure we could both find several articles stating each sides of the issue. It is what it is. People are going to have to study it themselves and decide on their own what they believe.

I personally believe it's a way for those in power to have more control over everyone and everything and/or it's a money-making scheme.

Now I do believe there are some/maybe many out there who are true believers in it. I just don't see the evidence to back it up.

I find it interesting how scientists keep changing their claims and their predictions when their claims and predictions turn out wrong.

Also people act like scientists are infallible. They are wrong all the time. Look at how many things they change their stance and recommendations on over time. Not just with this climate change stuff. But Things like what is healthy and unhealthy. Evolution/universe claims. Etc

Crichton's novel "State of Fear" explores all these issues. Very good novel, imo one of his best.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Icymi, Ted Cruz had to pull a television ad after it was discovered one of the actors was an adult fim star.
Ted Cruz pulls campaign ad with adult film actress - Story | KDFW