This winter is killing two of the biggest scare tactic lies ever told...

#227
#227
rwemyss said:
... since IP hasn't responded, I'm going to assume that's right for now.

If it is wrong, please say IP... but if correct, does that not mean that some part of your livelihood is dependent on the idea that we are headed for a disaster due to what we are doing via AGW? I mean, who is going to pay someone to do temperature reconstructions and understand climate, if it doesn't mean we're headed toward the apocalypse?

I hope that comes out right as well... this has always been one of my contentions about many climatologists... that their livelihood is dependent on AGW (as a doomsday problem), so why would they admit that it doesn't really matter what we do, the climate will change anyway, and our actions either way can't change that. ???

I'm interested in your response, not looking to start another fight.
Click to expand...

Many paleoclimatologists of my ilk get funding for projects of anthropological and natural history significance, more than anything.

For example, my recent project hasn't produced anything really interesting in regards to modern anthropogenic climate change for a variety of reasons, but it does paint an interesting picture of vegetation history and may provide interesting information about human settlement.

You can only get the sort of information that's "there," and you don't know what's "there" until you look.

I wouldn't try to say that my field or scientific academia in general doesn't receive funding for GCC type projects on a regular basis, but if that wasn't an issue or even a funded thing, there would always be other things for the discipline to do.

Of course, there are some individuals that are completely hitched to the GCC money wagon. I just don't know any personally, and they aren't as common as one might think.

My livelihood is ultimately hitched to education and a better understanding of past environments, so if GCC was somehow completely shutdown and absolutely disproven, or addressed and corrected by some new technology tomorrow, I would still have plenty of things to do that would be able to get funding.
 
#228
#228
IPorange said:
Many paleoclimatologists of my ilk get funding for projects of anthropological and natural history significance, more than anything.

For example, my recent project hasn't produced anything really interesting in regards to modern anthropogenic climate change for a variety of reasons, but it does paint an interesting picture of vegetation history and may provide interesting information about human settlement.

You can only get the sort of information that's "there," and you don't know what's "there" until you look.

I wouldn't try to say that my field or scientific academia in general doesn't receive funding for GCC type projects on a regular basis, but if that wasn't an issue or even a funded thing, there would always be other things for the discipline to do.

Of course, there are some individuals that are completely hitched to the GCC money wagon. I just don't know any personally, and they aren't as common as one might think.

My livelihood is ultimately hitched to education and a better understanding of past environments, so if GCC was somehow completely shutdown and absolutely disproven, or addressed and corrected by some new technology tomorrow, I would still have plenty of things to do that would be able to get funding.
Click to expand...

So I see my assumption of working for funding holds water, who would have thunk it? So we now know that your lively hood does in fact depend on people believing and accepting your beliefs. If Global Warming fails or your source study, you loose funding. Then you have to move along to something else to acquire funding to support your lively hood. I hope you can see by your own words here why some of us doubt science because of its ties to funding for its support.
 
#229
#229
I'm not posting anymore in this thread after this, so here is what I believe....

1. Man-made global warming is bunk. There have been hotter periods in the Earth's history and CO2 levels were not as high.

2. We are in the midst of climate change, but it's cyclical, not man-made. If people want to look at things dying as an indicator of climate change, then I would agree to a point, but it probably has more to do with pollution than anything.

3. No matter it we throw trillions of dollars at this theory, climate change is going to happen and we can argue about it all day long and not change that fact either.

4. The polar ice caps will NEVER fully melt. In fact, the Arctic Cap has grown by 409,000 square miles since 2007. So, get that doomsday theory out of the books.

5. There is NO one person, group, governmental agency, or private company that can accurately tell us what is going to happen in 20-30 years, let alone 3-5 years. So, they need to stop funneling money into the pit of money hell.

6. Even if we do warm up and have more rain, it will help with farming for the most part. We will have longer growing seasons, which means more food and it will be cheaper. We will also be able to grow things in places that we haven't been able to before. Thus, it will create jobs.

So, these are just a few examples of what I believe, and what will happen. If people want to continue down the doomsday platform, watch for the edge because it's not too far away. If people would stop trying to figure out what they can change, and figure out what they can control, the world would be a MUCH better place.
 
#230
#230
Oldvol75 said:
So I see my assumption of working for funding holds water, who would have thunk it? So we now know that your lively hood does in fact depend on people believing and accepting your beliefs. If Global Warming fails or your source study, you loose funding. Then you have to move along to something else to acquire funding to support your lively hood. I hope you can see by your own words here why some of us doubt science because of its ties to funding for its support.
Click to expand...

It depends on who he's working for and if they receive governmental funding or not. I don't think he would tell us anyways if his company were receiving funds from the government or not, because he probably doesn't know exactly.
 
#231
#231
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I'm not posting anymore in this thread after this, so here is what I believe....

1. Man-made global warming is bunk. There have been hotter periods in the Earth's history and CO2 levels were not as high.

2. We are in the midst of climate change, but it's cyclical, not man-made. If people want to look at things dying as an indicator of climate change, then I would agree to a point, but it probably has more to do with pollution than anything.

3. No matter it we throw trillions of dollars at this theory, climate change is going to happen and we can argue about it all day long and not change that fact either.

4. The polar ice caps will NEVER fully melt. In fact, the Arctic Cap has grown by 409,000 square miles since 2007. So, get that doomsday theory out of the books.

5. There is NO one person, group, governmental agency, or private company that can accurately tell us what is going to happen in 20-30 years, let alone 3-5 years. So, they need to stop funneling money into the pit of money hell.

6. Even if we do warm up and have more rain, it will help with farming for the most part. We will have longer growing seasons, which means more food and it will be cheaper. We will also be able to grow things in places that we haven't been able to before. Thus, it will create jobs.

So, these are just a few examples of what I believe, and what will happen. If people want to continue down the doomsday platform, watch for the edge because it's not too far away. If people would stop trying to figure out what they can change, and figure out what they can control, the world would be a MUCH better place.
Click to expand...

I approve this post!:good!:
 
#232
#232
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I'm not posting anymore in this thread after this, so here is what I believe....

1. Man-made global warming is bunk. There have been hotter periods in the Earth's history and CO2 levels were not as high.

Let's say it's the summer and you are working outside and get overheated - you feel like crap, because your core body temperature has risen to 102. Let's compare that to a time when you had the flu and were laying on the couch feeling like crap with a core body temperature of 104. In the past you were hotter, yet your activity level was lower. Obviously this isn't a great analogy, but I use it to point out that more than one thing can cause warming, and the fact that we were hotter without it in the past doesn't mean it isn't causing warming now. It's the wrong way to look at this issue, IMO

2. We are in the midst of climate change, but it's cyclical, not man-made. If people want to look at things dying as an indicator of climate change, then I would agree to a point, but it probably has more to do with pollution than anything.

That's an odd statement...there is a lot more the climate scientists are looking at than what is dying - actually, that part of the IPCC assessment reports (the biological record) is a part that I am fairly wary of...particularly in forecasting future death.

3. No matter it we throw trillions of dollars at this theory, climate change is going to happen and we can argue about it all day long and not change that fact either.

This makes much more sense than argument 1. This can be debated, but I think that one can at least reasonbly defend the position.

4. The polar ice caps will NEVER fully melt. In fact, the Arctic Cap has grown by 409,000 square miles since 2007. So, get that doomsday theory out of the books.

You're cracking me up. Neither you or I know if that will NEVER happen, because as you point out in item 3, climate change will happen without our influence and in a way that we cannot control (save some new technology like space mirrors/lenses that we don't have today).

5. There is NO one person, group, governmental agency, or private company that can accurately tell us what is going to happen in 20-30 years, let alone 3-5 years. So, they need to stop funneling money into the pit of money hell.

All any group can do is make predictions and go from there. Industry, government, etc. all have to do this. Throwing money at AGW is a big deal and should be regarded as so. I won't make light of it. It is enforcing a massive technological shift that had better be necessary if you are going to do it.

6. Even if we do warm up and have more rain, it will help with farming for the most part. We will have longer growing seasons, which means more food and it will be cheaper. We will also be able to grow things in places that we haven't been able to before. Thus, it will create jobs.

There is a lot wrong with this statement, Eric. I don't think you really have any idea what you are talking about here, honestly. It's like this is the way you thought it up in your head, so it must be this way. You state something that is wrong on multiple levels as fact. Will some areas benefit from global warming? Sure. Will the scenario you describe be beneficial? Not in the way you lay it out, IMO (and what I have studied about this issue).

Snowfall is generally good (as long as it doesn't happen all year!) because it rests on the land, usually has a slow melt form the bottom, and gives a lot of moisture to the ground, without a high amount of runoff. This is great for soil moisture. It is generally believed that many areas will see increased precipitation as rain, but if this rain comes in stronger storms (which it is believed by many that it will, but this could be debated), then the soil can be drier than it was before because the rain will fall too fast and runoff. A lot of areas depend on snow melt from the mountains surrounding there area to give them irrigation waters throughout the spring and into the summer. This allows them to farm in areas they otherwise would not be able to. If that snow falls as rain, then that opportunity is lost. Growing seasons will only be longer if soil moisture will keep up - and drought/water shortage is one of the big concerns about a changing climate - whether man is helping to steer it or not.

So, these are just a few examples of what I believe, and what will happen. If people want to continue down the doomsday platform, watch for the edge because it's not too far away. If people would stop trying to figure out what they can change, and figure out what they can control, the world would be a MUCH better place.

Keeping perspective on what we are trying to affect isn't bad advice, IMO.
Click to expand...

See bolded above....
 
#233
#233
Oldvol75 said:
So I see my assumption of working for funding holds water, who would have thunk it? So we now know that your lively hood does in fact depend on people believing and accepting your beliefs. If Global Warming fails or your source study, you loose funding. Then you have to move along to something else to acquire funding to support your lively hood. I hope you can see by your own words here why some of us doubt science because of its ties to funding for its support.
Click to expand...
He was really indicating to the contrary. :hi:

He did point out that there are many people in the field "firmly hitched to the GCC money wagon". I just don't think he is necessarily one of those, as I made an assumption of as well, and why I asked him to comment on it.

I'm agreeing to disagree with IP about how we interpret the "evidence". The issue is not as cut and dry as he believes, in my opinion. Especially when you consider the options. In the end, if it is true, and we are affecting our climate in this way... what are the solutions, and how are those solutions going to save us? No one can answer that, so I'll stick to the status quo, and keep my standard of living.
 
#236
#236
TennTradition said:
See bolded above....
Click to expand...

I thought I was through in this, but obviously not.

If they were making common sense decisions, they wouldn't be going off of the deep end in their predictions. Like I said, I think we can all agree climate change happens/is happening, but it's not on the scale that they are predicting. They want to throw money at something they can't control, it's typical governmental BS. This whole thing reminds me of our educational system, keep funneling money in and maybe we will get to where we need to be in the future. CO2 levels are NO WHERE NEAR dangerous levels. CO2 is not a pollutant, it's a naturally occurring gas. Scientists are making this WAY OVERBLOWN, IMO. So, if we at least try and keep the Earth clean, it will help more than trying to cap CO2 levels, because CO2 is not the problem. Remember when they tried to tell us that the O-Zone as going away, and they used the hole over the South Pole as their reference material?? Since then, it has been discovered that the O-Zone Hole is something that helps us keep the world temperature regulated, and it only happens during the Antarctic Spring. They banned all kinds of stuff, in response to some faulty science back then. So, why can't they realize that spouting off at the mouth does nothing but cause bad things to happen. All these doomsday scenarios are NOT good for the people of this world, especially when it comes to faulty and young sciences.

So, let's just help clean up the Earth, and we can make a bigger difference in the quality of life for everyone here, than we could by regulating a naturally occurring gas in CO2. I'm all about a greener and cleaner planet, but I'm not going to give up my hard earned money for it.
 
#238
#238
Oldvol75 said:
So I see my assumption of working for funding holds water, who would have thunk it? So we now know that your lively hood does in fact depend on people believing and accepting your beliefs. If Global Warming fails or your source study, you loose funding. Then you have to move along to something else to acquire funding to support your lively hood. I hope you can see by your own words here why some of us doubt science because of its ties to funding for its support.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how you arrived at this.
 
#239
#239
So if I were to study evidence to disprove Global warming, no one would fund it? It works both ways, just look at that creation museum Creationism is laughed at by ALMOST the entire scientific community, yet millions are pored into disproving it. This museum took millions of dollars to create.
 
#240
#240
Nash270 said:
So if I were to study evidence to disprove Global warming, no one would fund it? It works both ways, just look at that creation museum Creationism is laughed at by ALMOST the entire scientific community, yet millions are pored into disproving it. This museum took millions of dollars to create.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of funding to "disprove" global warming. It's just hard to find solid evidence that runs counter to it.

EDIT: 22 bucks for admission?!
 
Last edited:
#241
#241
IPorange said:
There is plenty of funding to "disprove" global warming. It's just hard to find solid evidence that runs counter to it.

EDIT: 22 bucks for admission?!
Click to expand...

ha yeah, i laugh about it but its scary. ROFL at the picture of the garden of Eden with dinosaurs in it. And the fact the figures of humans in the exhibits all look like us. Its a fact we have evolved in 2000 years AT LEAST. The average man in just the 17th-century was 5’ 6"
 
#242
#242
IPorange said:
There is plenty of funding to "disprove" global warming. It's just hard to find solid evidence that runs counter to it.

EDIT: 22 bucks for admission?!
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Yup, there is plenty of evidence that proves it too. I knew I was wasting my keystrokes last night.
 
#243
#243
IPorange said:
There is plenty of funding to "disprove" global warming. It's just hard to find solid evidence that runs counter to it.

EDIT: 22 bucks for admission?!
Click to expand...

I guess all those emails that they have uncovered mean nothing. Thats sad!
 
#246
#246
The truth of the matter of this whole situation is. Do not depend on politicians to do the thinking for you on the issue of "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" or whatever phrases we are currently using that are conveniently at our public discourse. If you want to find the truth, get off your arse and learn about it, do some research. There's a great invention called Google that carries tons of info on the subject, and if you aren't too lazy to read some of it (please, don't base your entire opinion on one single article, look at many and then compare), then you should be able to form some kind of opinion on it. That's what i did (along with paying attention in science classes) and my opinion is, that climate change is happening, and will continue to happen as long as the earth is spinning around the sun. Regardless of whether humans are on the earth or not. There were ice ages and warm periods long before humans ever got here, and that will continue long after we're gone.
 
#247
#247
Now as for the whole H1N1 thing, give me a break. Is it deadly? No. At least not right now IN THE U.S. thanks to the level of our medical care compared to other areas. But does in have the potential to be deadly? Well ofcourse it does, it's the flu, it's a virus. The only difference is, it is much more contageous. But it does have the ability to mutate, and cause very deadly and highly contageous strains that could kill many. Thankfully, that hasn't happened yet, and likely won't. But when it first started, scientists didn't know enough about it to really be sure. Therefore, i imagine they thought it'd be a safe bet to warn people of it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top