So much for global warming.

#176
#176
CSpindizzy said:
But yet oddly they are the ones taking the charge on forcing legislation on the subject - forcing their citizens to abide by questionable results and motives. So by default, these politicians will be ignored and their legislation be fought against.
Click to expand...

Wait, are you saying politicians are bad?
 
#178
#178
December isn't climate. The last 10 years aren't climate. This is is a matter of understanding terms, which has been the problem with politicians and the public.
 
#179
#179
IPorange said:
December isn't climate. The last 10 years aren't climate. This is is a matter of understanding terms, which has been the problem with politicians and the public.
Click to expand...

you're going to make the same mistake as politicians and assume that the public is just some herd of cattle too stupid to understand what's going on around it.
 
#180
#180
IPorange said:
December isn't climate. The last 10 years aren't climate. This is is a matter of understanding terms, which has been the problem with politicians and the public.
Click to expand...

And the problem with arrogant people on boards who take things out of context - did I say December was climate? No. And weren't you the one who said models predicted larger amounts of snow when just mentioning this DC snowstorm?

Clearly "understanding terms" and facts for that matter have been an issue of late with those climate change scientists pushing for radical legislation.
 
#181
#181
MG1968 said:
you're going to make the same mistake as politicians and assume that the public is just some herd of cattle too stupid to understand what's going on around it.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...let me see - "ignorant public" with n scientific background or "enlightened scientists" who choose to manipulate data to push their own private agendas....who do I pick? Decisions decisions...
 
#182
#182
MG1968 said:
you're going to make the same mistake as politicians and assume that the public is just some herd of cattle too stupid to understand what's going on around it.
Click to expand...

Who's making assumptions? I don't care what you believe about the subject, it is clear that 90 % of Americans have inaccurate or untrue perceptions on the topic, on both sides of the issue.
 
#183
#183
CSpindizzy said:
And the problem with arrogant people on boards who take things out of context - did I say December was climate? No. And weren't you the one who said models predicted larger amounts of snow when just mentioning this DC snowstorm?

Clearly "understanding terms" and facts for that matter have been an issue of late with those climate change scientists pushing for radical legislation.
Click to expand...

Relax, I didn't attack you or imply anything. There was no slight against you in my post.

My point was you made a comment about the irony of the recent snowfall in DC. I mentioned that weather event was actually consistent with what many had predicted. I did not by any means claim that it proved anything. To the contrary, all the weather talk that comes up on message boards and from pundits on both sides EVERY winter and EVERY summer proves nothing.
 
#185
#185
Whether you agree with ANY aspect of global warming or not, you have to admit there is a credibility issue here. Pretty much anything that comes out of there is DoA. At this point these scientists could legitimately see a planet killer asteroid coming and we'd be space dust before anyone knew it.
 
#186
#186
CSpindizzy said:
Whether you agree with ANY aspect of global warming or not, you have to admit there is a credibility issue here. Pretty much anything that comes out of there is DoA. At this point these scientists could legitimately see a planet killer asteroid coming and we'd be space dust before anyone knew it.
Click to expand...

I disagree because I have a different perspective on this than you. For you, you see all global climate change as flowing through the UN and far Left politicians, and as their instruments for whatever purpose they dream up.

For me, I see it coming from people I have met, and using techniques that I am very familiar with, using terminology and concepts I am versed in. So when I read about the silliness at the UN, it doesn't change my opinions about climate research, as the UN isn't actually doing any. When a politician says something that isn't true, that's just a dumb politician to me and I don't see them as connected to the community actually working in the field.
 
#189
#189
IPorange said:
I disagree because I have a different perspective on this than you. For you, you see all global climate change as flowing through the UN and far Left politicians, and as their instruments for whatever purpose they dream up.

For me, I see it coming from people I have met, and using techniques that I am very familiar with, using terminology and concepts I am versed in. So when I read about the silliness at the UN, it doesn't change my opinions about climate research, as the UN isn't actually doing any. When a politician says something that isn't true, that's just a dumb politician to me and I don't see them as connected to the community actually working in the field.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. How do the shenanigans of the actual scientists strike you?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#193
#193
BigPapaVol said:
Fair enough. How do the shenanigans of the actual scientists strike you?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

If you are referring to the stolen emails, vastly over-blown. If you are referring to the guy who knowingly propagated false information concerning Himalayan glacial retreat, he's a loon. Good thing other climate scientists (who do support the mainstream finding on GCC) eventually caught it and corrected it.
 
#196
#196
IPorange said:
I disagree because I have a different perspective on this than you. For you, you see all global climate change as flowing through the UN and far Left politicians, and as their instruments for whatever purpose they dream up.

For me, I see it coming from people I have met, and using techniques that I am very familiar with, using terminology and concepts I am versed in. So when I read about the silliness at the UN, it doesn't change my opinions about climate research, as the UN isn't actually doing any. When a politician says something that isn't true, that's just a dumb politician to me and I don't see them as connected to the community actually working in the field.
Click to expand...

And you've proven my point. Your 'circles' believe one thing and the issue before the public is another. You've had an agenda pushed on the public by a politically left fringe for some time now. This politically left fringe is an association of scientists, politicians, actors, and various oher celebrities. Whether you like it or not,this mass association is the voice of "climate change". With all of these revelations of late, this association has come to ignorant politicians, scientists who have backtracked due to forged results, leaked info damaging an image, actors and celebrities who are in the same knowledge level as the politicians - all with the proverbial credibility black eye. "Global warming", "climate change", or whatever buzz phrase you want to call it has a credibility issue among the public.

What does this mean? You will still have a fringe trying to change laws and force aspects on their constituents. But to the public as a whole, the perception is that this whole movement is damaged and will second guess anything for some time to come.
 
#197
#197
IPorange said:
If you are referring to the stolen emails, vastly over-blown. If you are referring to the guy who knowingly propagated false information concerning Himalayan glacial retreat, he's a loon. Good thing other climate scientists (who do support the mainstream finding on GCC) eventually caught it and corrected it.
Click to expand...
Very good thing they caught it - after it was clear that they were going to get hammered.

Why is it so hard for science side of this to admit it's overblown too! Science acts infallible, while it has been wrong far more than right. Would be easier to support if that side, too, weren't about the money.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#198
#198
BigPapaVol said:
Very good thing they caught it - after it was clear that they were going to get hammered.

Why is it so hard for science side of this to admit it's overblown too! Science acts infallible, while it has been wrong far more than right. Would be easier to support if that side, too, weren't about the money.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I really doubt they were going to get "hammered," since it went unnoticed for 15 years until scientists themselves traced it back and found it had no basis in observed data.

As far as science being wrong far more than right, I am sure that is true. But you would be hard-pressed to find any human institution where that isn't the case.

I agree that there are elements that are very disturbing, in regards to the money.
 
#199
#199
CSpindizzy said:
And you've proven my point. Your 'circles' believe one thing and the issue before the public is another. You've had an agenda pushed on the public by a politically left fringe for some time now. This politically left fringe is an association of scientists, politicians, actors, and various oher celebrities. Whether you like it or not,this mass association is the voice of "climate change". With all of these revelations of late, this association has come to ignorant politicians, scientists who have backtracked due to forged results, leaked info damaging an image, actors and celebrities who are in the same knowledge level as the politicians - all with the proverbial credibility black eye. "Global warming", "climate change", or whatever buzz phrase you want to call it has a credibility issue among the public.

What does this mean? You will still have a fringe trying to change laws and force aspects on their constituents. But to the public as a whole, the perception is that this whole movement is damaged and will second guess anything for some time to come.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the only difference in our stances is that I actually think there is an underlying truth and concern in regards to anthropogenic GCC, and you don't. Other than that, we agree.
 
#200
#200
Actually I believe that man does have an effect on climate. I believe it is limited and becomes difficult to test due to so many other factors such as sunspots, geologic events, trends and cycles, etc. I do believe there is a certain aspect that we can "do our part" and be responsible but I do not agree with some radical need for global regulation and cap and trade type laws to be passed.

The fringe I referred to could care less about the environment and I believe they truly have a non-environmental concern as a motive. Seeing even the scientists among others run off in polution spewing jets to global conferences piled with documents in meetings burning electricity, etc. leads me to believe they don't even believe half of what they preach. And that comes back to a credibility issue.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top