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

#76
#76
TennTradition said:
You've come to that conclusion, Eric, but "in the name of all things holy" I can't understand how you can honestly believe it with no equivocation. Sure, there are political agendas at play here, but that alone doesn't mean it's crap. There are plenty of seeds sewn by good scientific research that suggest that a portion of the warming we have seen is due to an enhanced greenhouse effect due to emissions caused by man's activities. Those seeds haven't grown into what I would call a forest of completely solid evidence (that's why I'm willing to equivocate on the issue), but they are there, and to cast them off with no equivocation suggests to me that 'the earth will take care of itself' is the only thing you will accept, regardless of other evidence.
Click to expand...

The fact that there are more and more scientists moving away from the theory itself, tells me that it's a young and flawed science and one that revolves around money and power. Does that mean that climate change doesn't exist?? No, but the weather changes everyday and every year, therefore the climate is going to change over the course of 30 years. There, however, is no real measurable difference in the climate around the world now, than there was 200 years ago. The fact that scientists can't control something or completely understand it, drives them nuts and makes a lot of them go crazy with theories. I'm sure that we will know much more about things in 30 years, and I'm sure that climate won't be much different, if any, then than it is now.
 
#77
#77
g8terh8ter_eric said:
The fact that there are more and more scientists moving away from the theory itself, tells me that it's a young and flawed science and one that revolves around money and power. Does that mean that climate change doesn't exist?? No, but the weather changes everyday and every year, therefore the climate is going to change over the course of 30 years. There, however, is no real measurable difference in the climate around the world now, than there was 200 years ago. The fact that scientists can't control something or completely understand it, drives them nuts and makes a lot of them go crazy with theories. I'm sure that we will know much more about things in 30 years, and I'm sure that climate won't be much different, if any, then than it is now.
Click to expand...

None of this is fact. Well, except us knowing more in 30 years.
 
#78
#78
VolInMn said:
Well.....thanks for refuting a point I never made, I guess. :hi:
Click to expand...

Posts are black and white letters. What you meant to say and what you wrote can be interpreted in many different ways by many different readers.

You not making a point though is totally understandable coming from a liberal background. Kidding... Kind of...
 
#81
#81
IPorange said:
Where do you hear that there are more and more scientists moving away from the GCC?
Click to expand...

Because there are less scientists today that would argue man-made climate change, than there were 5 years ago. I've heard interviews with several that said the whole thing revolves around money and power, and that's not science, that's government. There was never a consensus on the issue, and there will never be one.
 
#82
#82
g8terh8ter_eric said:
The fact that there are more and more scientists moving away from the theory itself, tells me that it's a young and flawed science and one that revolves around money and power. Does that mean that climate change doesn't exist?? No, but the weather changes everyday and every year, therefore the climate is going to change over the course of 30 years. There, however, is no real measurable difference in the climate around the world now, than there was 200 years ago. The fact that scientists can't control something or completely understand it, drives them nuts and makes a lot of them go crazy with theories. I'm sure that we will know much more about things in 30 years, and I'm sure that climate won't be much different, if any, then than it is now.
Click to expand...

I get the feeling that you don't like scientists very much, and particularly don't like the government funding science. Is that accurate?
 
#83
#83
TennTradition said:
I get the feeling that you don't like scientists very much, and particularly don't like the government funding science. Is that accurate?
Click to expand...

I loves me some scientists, what I don't love is bureaucracy driving the results of a lot of them. If it wasn't for scientists, the good ones, then our quality of life would be much lower, IMO. The fact that Climate Change scientists have changed their minds almost 3 times in 40 years, tells me that they don't have a consensus, much less a clue about how climate really works. Yet, we are possibly going to be subject to pay for BILLIONS of dollars in research for something that NO ONE can prove exists or not?? That's where I draw the line. Even what they have presented as evidence it exists is nonsense, IMO.
 
#84
#84
Rasputin_Vol said:
1. Global warming (Tennessee is bracing for more sub-freezing temps going into late next week)

2. The panic created over the swine flu (I haven't heard anything newsworthy about the swine flu since October)
Click to expand...


1. If its really hot somewhere else, does that mean that there is global warming in their world?

2. If there is an outbreak of swine flu in your state, county, or on your street, does that mean that in your universe it is a real cause for concern?

Tell me Rasputin, since you can't see them, I assume you think that germs don't exist, that bacteria is a liberal conspiracy to generate university funding, and that atoms are a figment of the minds of Bohrs and Einstein?

Seriously. You need to stop talking about anything related to science.
 
#85
#85
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I loves me some scientists, what I don't love is bureaucracy driving the results of a lot of them. If it wasn't for scientists, the good ones, then our quality of life would be much lower, IMO. The fact that Climate Change scientists have changed their minds almost 3 times in 40 years, tells me that they don't have a consensus, much less a clue about how climate really works. Yet, we are possibly going to be subject to pay for BILLIONS of dollars in research for something that NO ONE can prove exists or not?? That's where I draw the line. Even what they have presented as evidence it exists is nonsense, IMO.
Click to expand...

Viewing scientists as individuals that can't stand the fact that man can't control something suggested to me that you don't have a positive impression of scientists...that's why I asked. To me, the notion that scientists can't accept that man doesn't control something leading them to develop theories to suggest otherwise is not accurate in the least. It is true that scientists don't like not understanding things, and so they research it and develop theories that they then further research/test/develop. However, science is perfectly OK with the idea that man doesn't control nature. Science is predicated on fundamental laws of nature...not laws of man.
 
#86
#86
TennTradition said:
Viewing scientists as individuals that can't stand the fact that man can't control something suggested to me that you don't have a positive impression of scientists...that's why I asked. To me, the notion that scientists can't accept that man doesn't control something leading them to develop theories to suggest otherwise is not accurate in the least. It is true that scientists don't like not understanding things, and so they research it and develop theories that they then further research/test/develop. However, science is perfectly OK with the idea that man doesn't control nature. Science is predicated on fundamental laws of nature...not laws of man.
Click to expand...

Would "man made" global warming be considered a theory, at this point?
 
#88
#88
BeecherVol said:
Would "man made" global warming be considered a theory, at this point?
Click to expand...

Yes and no. I would say that the theories are more about the underlying physics that lead to warming from greenhouse gas emissions as well as the theories that allow us to understand past climate than about "man made global warming" itself, if that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
#89
#89
lawgator1 said:
1. If its really hot somewhere else, does that mean that there is global warming in their world?
No, technically it means their weather has been warmer.
2. If there is an outbreak of swine flu in your state, county, or on your street, does that mean that in your universe it is a real cause for concern?

Tell me Rasputin, since you can't see them, I assume you think that germs don't exist, that bacteria is a liberal conspiracy to generate university funding, and that atoms are a figment of the minds of Bohrs and Einstein?

Seriously. You need to stop talking about anything related to science.
Click to expand...

I agree that local weather patterns don't prove or disprove climate change, it is all about trends over extended periods of time. The problem I have with it all is climate has never really been static enough to set a bar and say this is where climate should range.

As most of us are aware Earth's climate has moved from hotter and warmer to back again several times over. It appears from scientific research that climate has spiked warmer at somewhat unprecedented levels. We can only go so far back through the records that nature has left us.

The real problem many of us have are the agenda being tied to the science. Some scientists are part of this agenda, some aren't. The problem comes into play for me when scientists allow their work to be attached to this agenda, some want nothing to do with it I'm sure but there are plenty who are. Those in the middle probably see the green initiative as a move in the right direction because doing something is better than doing nothing in their eyes. This is also a problem for me in that I believe the green initiative will not be effective to any real extent as far as it's effect on the climate and ecosystem. In fact I believe it can cause much more harm than good. I believe there are plenty of people directly involved in the so called green initiative who want nothing more than to see America and other developed countries hamstrung in favor of underdeveloped nations.

Sorry about the wall of text.
 
#90
#90
lawgator1 said:
Its not a theory. Its a question of the extent that it has the effect some people claim and whether the environment compensates for that, on its own.
Click to expand...

TennTradition said:
Yes and no. I would say that the theories are more about the underlying physics that lead to warming from greenhouse gas emissions as well as the theories that allow us to understand past climate than about "man made global warming" itself, if that makes sense.
Click to expand...

If this a warming period we are in, (in relation to climate changes over the years), and we slide into another "mini" ice age, or cooling period, is the "made man" "industrialized" global warming considered a myth?
 
#91
#91
KB5252 said:
I agree that local weather patterns don't prove or disprove climate change, it is all about trends over extended periods of time. The problem I have with it all is climate has never really been static enough to set a bar and say this is where climate should range.

As most of us are aware Earth's climate has moved from hotter and warmer to back again several times over. It appears from scientific research that climate has spiked warmer at somewhat unprecedented levels. We can only go so far back through the records that nature has left us.

The real problem many of us have are the agenda being tied to the science. Some scientists are part of this agenda, some aren't. The problem comes into play for me when scientists allow their work to be attached to this agenda, some want nothing to do with it I'm sure but there are plenty who are. Those in the middle probably see the green initiative as a move in the right direction because doing something is better than doing nothing in their eyes. This is also a problem for me in that I believe the green initiative will not be effective to any real extent as far as it's effect on the climate and ecosystem. In fact I believe it can cause much more harm than good. I believe there are plenty of people directly involved in the so called green initiative who want nothing more than to see America and other developed countries hamstrung in favor of underdeveloped nations.

Sorry about the wall of text.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. There is a valid debate to be had simply as to the amount of data that is necessary to make a decision as to what the trend is.

However, whatever that minimum amount of data in actuality must be, I am CERTAIN that a few months of really cold temperatures in OP's neck of the woods doesn't come anywhere close.

It is disturbing to me, however, that so many conservatives are using a week's worth of data in a particular area to decry what should be a very serious topic.
 
#92
#92
BeecherVol said:
If this a warming period we are in, (in relation to climate changes over the years), and we slide into another "mini" ice age, or cooling period, is the "made man" "industrialized" global warming considered a myth?
Click to expand...

Can you clarify what you mean? Do you mean if we have another ice age in the future, does that mean that "man made" warming was a myth? If so, then my answer is no. I would think that it is possible to have an ice age with man-made warming if the earth's orbit were to shift enough or the output of the sun were to decrease enough. It would just be warmer than it would have been had those greenhouse gases not been there.
 
#93
#93
lawgator1 said:
Absolutely. There is a valid debate to be had simply as to the amount of data that is necessary to make a decision as to what the trend is.

However, whatever that minimum amount of data in actuality must be, I am CERTAIN that a few months of really cold temperatures in OP's neck of the woods doesn't come anywhere close.

It is disturbing to me, however, that so many conservatives are using a week's worth of data in a particular area to decry what should be a very serious topic.
Click to expand...

Is it at that level assuming we need more data to make a better decision?

Or are you saying the possibility is a very serious topic?
 
#94
#94
lawgator1 said:
Absolutely. There is a valid debate to be had simply as to the amount of data that is necessary to make a decision as to what the trend is.

However, whatever that minimum amount of data in actuality must be, I am CERTAIN that a few months of really cold temperatures in OP's neck of the woods doesn't come anywhere close.

It is disturbing to me, however, that so many conservatives are using a week's worth of data in a particular area to decry what should be a very serious topic.
Click to expand...

Yet scientists are using 200 years worth of data to try and come to the conclusion that we could all burn up if we don't start trying to control a naturally occurring gas in C02. Pot meet kettle.
 
#95
#95
lawgator1 said:
It is disturbing to me, however, that so many conservatives are using a week's worth of data in a particular area to decry what should be a very serious topic.
Click to expand...

Kinda like Liberals using one hurricane as proof of global warming. Both sides have a history of doing this.
 
#97
#97
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Yet scientists are using 200 years worth of data to try and come to the conclusion that we could all burn up if we don't start trying to control a naturally occurring gas in C02. Pot meet kettle.
Click to expand...

Here's what we got:

global primary information from actual thermometers and personal accounts going back to at least 1890.

Personal accounts, weather records (from farmers, vineyards, all sorts of random places) on perhaps a regional scale going back to 900-1000 AD for much of the Old World.

Dendrochronological data (tree rings) from around the world going back 2000 years and more.

Records derived from marine and lake sediment by using proxies such as pollen, diatoms, ostracods, isotopes, mineral deposits and more going back 10,000 years and more.

Records derived from ice cores going back 10's of thousands of years.

Records derived from geological evidence going back millions of years.




The further down that list you go, the less exact the information. But the information is still there and is still detailed enough to get a picture of things.
 
#98
#98
lumberjack4 said:
Kinda like Liberals using one hurricane as proof of global warming. Both sides have a history of doing this.
Click to expand...

While some individual may have said that to you, no one hurricane is proof of anything. Besides, Katrina was mostly a man-made disaster of another sort (levees).
 
#99
#99
TennTradition said:
Can you clarify what you mean? Do you mean if we have another ice age in the future, does that mean that "man made" warming was a myth? If so, then my answer is no. I would think that it is possible to have an ice age with man-made warming if the earth's orbit were to shift enough or the output of the sun were to decrease enough. It would just be warmer than it would have been had those greenhouse gases not been there.
Click to expand...

My point was that we have climate cycles over time. If we go through another cold/cool cycle, after a warm cycle, what would make anyone think it is not a natural cycle?
 
#100
#100
BeecherVol said:
My point was that we have climate cycles over time. If we go through another cold/cool cycle, after a warm cycle, what would make anyone think it is not a natural cycle?
Click to expand...

Well, we know that we go through cycles. The increased presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere shouldn't change that. It's all about how much hotter the warming cycles get than they would have without the influence of man.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top