User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:31:55 PM EDT
[#1]
I like how they say "X number of acres DESTROYED by fire!" Like the land is lost and forever poisoned.
Fucking Chernobyl, the worst man-made disaster in history, is now the largest nature preserve in all of Europe. Life is THRIVING there. Almost as if this big 'ole ball of rock has been going around for billions of years without a bunch of hand-wringing on our part, and would keep chuggin' along without us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:32:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Quoted: Link to concrete climate change debunking please. Are vaccines evil too? And mothman is real. Nice strawman there junkie. How about you debate the facts before I stomp your fragile psyche into the manure pile? Yes! Do it! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:32:44 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, apparently most scientists in the field don't agree with you.
Quoted:
Guess I must have missed something, "Global warming" hasn't been debunked. And it has never been "bunked" in the first place. Hypothesis based on incomplete understanding of atmospheric physics. Yea, the very guys the poured the sum total of their intellect into their failed models. Hockey Stick, anyone? Singer at MIT says its all crap. And, he accurately predicted the failure of the GCMs. Oh, so we shouldn't believe most scientists, but believe one guy at MIT, because he is smarter. Oh okay, makes sense. Consensus is not one of the steps in the scientific method. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:33:52 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, apparently most scientists in the field don't agree with you.
Quoted:
Guess I must have missed something, "Global warming" hasn't been debunked. And it has never been "bunked" in the first place. Hypothesis based on incomplete understanding of atmospheric physics. Yea, the very guys the poured the sum total of their intellect into their failed models. Hockey Stick, anyone? Singer at MIT says its all crap. And, he accurately predicted the failure of the GCMs. Oh, so we shouldn't believe most scientists, but believe one guy at MIT, because he is smarter. Oh okay, makes sense. Cool, instead of any direct response, you resort to ad hominem. I like it. Failed climate models, phoney hockey stick, original data trashed at UEA/CRU, replaced with faked records, none of that matters. Ok, just to make this easier for you, I AGREE WITH YOU. YOU ARE RIGHT! Can you just accept that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:34:47 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Consensus is not one of the steps in the scientific method. It never was, until now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:36:47 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well, apparently most scientists in the field don't agree with you.Quoted: Guess I must have missed something, "Global warming" hasn't been debunked. And it has never been "bunked" in the first place. Hypothesis based on incomplete understanding of atmospheric physics. Yea, the very guys the poured the sum total of their intellect into their failed models. Hockey Stick, anyone? Singer at MIT says its all crap. And, he accurately predicted the failure of the GCMs. Oh, so we shouldn't believe most scientists, but believe one guy at MIT, because he is smarter. Oh okay, makes sense. Consensus is not one of the steps in the scientific method. Nor has throwing out a list of questions and declaring that the science has been "debunked". |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:36:48 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Link to concrete climate change debunking please. Are vaccines evil too? And mothman is real. Nice strawman there junkie. How about you debate the facts before I stomp your fragile psyche into the manure pile? Do it! Just for fun, please, please, please 
So many tough guys on this board! I love it!! Stomp away! If you want to believe that you have no affect on the environment around you that is your choice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:37:44 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well, apparently most scientists in the field don't agree with you.Quoted: Guess I must have missed something, "Global warming" hasn't been debunked. And it has never been "bunked" in the first place. Hypothesis based on incomplete understanding of atmospheric physics. They may be scientists but they cannot explain in less than 1000 words the cause of each layer of the atmosphere. Nor do they have any rigorous studies in heat transfer or thermodynamics. These are socially promoted sophomores. They learned how to run before they knew how to crawl.  i'll have to tell that one to one of our resident climatologist, who has been studying atmospheric dynamics since the '50s, particularly ENSO. to quote him a few beers in, "i don't know that it's as bad as a lot of these younger fellas say it is, but the idea that CO2 emissions are not increasing global temperature is awfully naive. those people usually have a political axe to grind." the last part in particular is true.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:37:52 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
So many tough guys on this board! I love it!! Stomp away! If you want to believe that you have no affect on the environment around you that is your choice. Welcome back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:40:14 PM EDT
[#10]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-now.html
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/04/15/scientists-baffled-as-report-proves-global-warming-has-stopped/ http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10772757.htm Lots of info on the web about the warming alarmists and their exxagerated claims... if you care to look. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:40:24 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Quoted: Oh, so we shouldn't believe most scientists, but believe one guy at MIT, because he is smarter. Oh okay, makes sense. Cool, instead of any direct response, you resort to ad hominem. I like it. Failed climate models, phoney hockey stick, original data trashed at UEA/CRU, replaced with faked records, none of that matters. Ok, just to make this easier for you, I AGREE WITH YOU. YOU ARE RIGHT! Can you just accept that? But, we do also have climate models that do have limited predictive ability, unquestionable warming that has occurred, clearly observed changes to climate, weather, temperatures, animal migrations, ice coverages, etc. But none of that matters I guess. Okay, I'll just make it easier for you "You are right, its a conspiracy, nothing at all his different in the climate today than it was 100 years ago, but if it is, we definitely have nothing to do with it, and if we do, its definitely not going to be a problem." |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:41:43 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh, so we shouldn't believe most scientists, but believe one guy at MIT, because he is smarter. Oh okay, makes sense. Cool, instead of any direct response, you resort to ad hominem. I like it. Failed climate models, phoney hockey stick, original data trashed at UEA/CRU, replaced with faked records, none of that matters. Ok, just to make this easier for you, I AGREE WITH YOU. YOU ARE RIGHT! Can you just accept that? But, we do also have climate models that do have limited predictive ability, unquestionable warming that has occurred, clearly observed changes to climate, weather, temperatures, animal migrations, ice coverages, etc. But none of that matters I guess. Okay, I'll just make it easier for you "You are right, its a conspiracy, nothing at all his different in the climate today than it was 100 years ago, but if it is, we definitely have nothing to do with it, and if we do, its definitely not going to be a problem." OK, so you can't just accept it. But I appreciate your putting words in my mouth I never said. Guess that makes it easier for you. Carry on . . . . . . . . |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:41:44 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Nor has throwing out a list of questions and declaring that the science has been "debunked". AGW and "Greenhouse gasses" as the mechanism is the hypothesis. There are problems with this hypothesis. But rather than address these problems, the majority response from people with a vested financial/career interest in the hypothesis has heretofore been "The debate is over!" I am not a climatologist or a meteorologist. But I know a con game when I see one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:41:45 PM EDT
[#14]
I don't know about you guys, but I'm going to believe the 97% of scientists who study the subject and believe that humans are impacting the climate vs. the 3% who don't. Again, I don't know about the rest of you but I'm not a global climate scientist and until I go back to college to grab one of those degrees, I'm not going to pretend like I have the vast knowledge needed to form my own opinion on the subject. All I can do is use the facts out there created by these scientists, and their opinions, to determine that, with the facts we have now, it's hard to argue against our impact on the climate.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:43:39 PM EDT
[#15]
I read Scientific American and Science every month. Those two magazines represent the consensus of scientific thought in this country. AGWis accepted as a given
in both magazines. People that deny AGW are looked upon as members of the lunatic fringe. That's the consesnsus of the scientific community! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:43:48 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Quoted: ... Consensus is not one of the steps in the scientific method. actually, it is. it's part of the replication phase. special relativity was only a good argument until einstein forced the scientific world to come to a consensus during the 1919 eclipse. until that consensus happened, relativity was just one guy working on his conceptual model and data. science is socially constructed--there is no way around that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:44:15 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
I am not a climatologist or a meteorologist. But I know a con game when I see one. The face of Global Warming: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:44:27 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Quoted: Forests are the ultimate renewable resource. Trees are awesome, use them, they grow back. Wood grows IN trees  .Now, on the nature of the atmosphere... The Troposphere is named as such because it is MIXING. Convection is the primary heat transfer mode, mean free path is measured in microns thanks to the effects of a thick atmosphere laden with water vapor. There is a lapse rate based on heat rejection to overlaying atmosphere which is inversely proportional to water vapor concentration which decreases with altitude. The Stratosphere is named because it is STRATIFIED. Much like a thermocline in a lake/ocean. Heat rises. Mean free path is measured in millimeters and water vapor concentration is uniform and low. Heat rejection is naturally greatest at the Stratopause, the altitude of greatest temperature and approach to zero in the temperature rate of change. The Mesosphere again sees a lapse rate but due to mean free path increasing to centimeters. Here is where radiational heat rejection dominates. Guess what? Only sounding rockets can study this layer. Yet the hubris laden climate "scientists" think they know EVERYTHING on how the climate functions. Balderdash. They don't even have a good idea of heat rejection at the Stratopause. So now, if you THINK the climate is controlled at the lowest boundary layer, guess again. You don't know how to create a representative model. Crickets. Where is the resident climate scientist that has been studying it since the 1950s? Bueller? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:45:15 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
So many tough guys on this board! I love it!! Stomp away! If you want to believe that you have no affect on the environment around you that is your choice. Welcome back. Thanks, had to let the dogs out sorry. I'm one of those silly guys that picks up after they shit because science tells me letting it build up in the lake next to me would be bad for the oxygen levels and would kill the fish. Silly science! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:46:53 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Oh, so we shouldn't believe most scientists, but believe one guy at MIT, because he is smarter. Oh okay, makes sense. Cool, instead of any direct response, you resort to ad hominem. I like it. Failed climate models, phoney hockey stick, original data trashed at UEA/CRU, replaced with faked records, none of that matters. Ok, just to make this easier for you, I AGREE WITH YOU. YOU ARE RIGHT! Can you just accept that? But, we do also have climate models that do have limited predictive ability, unquestionable warming that has occurred, clearly observed changes to climate, weather, temperatures, animal migrations, ice coverages, etc. But none of that matters I guess. Okay, I'll just make it easier for you "You are right, its a conspiracy, nothing at all his different in the climate today than it was 100 years ago, but if it is, we definitely have nothing to do with it, and if we do, its definitely not going to be a problem." Your user name is somewhat ironic. In to watch Keith_J stomp egos etc.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:47:13 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am not a climatologist or a meteorologist. But I know a con game when I see one. The face of Global Warming: http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00977/SNA303314-280_977147a.jpg Why can't the ultra-rich afford braces? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:47:17 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So many tough guys on this board! I love it!! Stomp away! If you want to believe that you have no affect on the environment around you that is your choice. Welcome back. Thanks, had to let the dogs out sorry. I'm one of those silly guys that picks up after they shit because science tells me letting it build up in the lake next to me would be bad for the oxygen levels and would kill the fish. Silly science! Um, it was sincere. Your sarcasm is noted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:48:29 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Why can't the ultra-rich afford braces? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:49:14 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ... Consensus is not one of the steps in the scientific method. actually, it is. it's part of the replication phase. special relativity was only a good argument until einstein forced the scientific world to come to a consensus during the 1919 eclipse. until that consensus happened, relativity was just one guy working on his conceptual model and data. science is socially constructed--there is no way around that. Cute. Another strawman. 1000 words, go for it. Accept my challenge. Don't quote, tell us what you KNOW. 5.67x10-8 ring a bell? That is is Watts/meter2K  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:49:31 PM EDT
[#25]
MBF (Massive Bovine Flatulence) almost destroyed the earth's atmosphere some years back, I think we're OK now
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:52:21 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: MBF (Massive Bovine Flatulence) almost destroyed the earth's atmosphere some years back, I think we're OK now Thank goodness the United States Supreme Court stepped in and made a wise decision .I want to know why the cavemen burned all that fossil fuel causing it to warm and forcing the extinction of the Wooly Mammoth  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:52:25 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
I don't know about you guys, but I'm going to believe the 97% of scientists who study the subject and believe that humans are impacting the climate vs. the 3% who don't. Again, I don't know about the rest of you but I'm not a global climate scientist and until I go back to college to grab one of those degrees, I'm not going to pretend like I have the vast knowledge needed to form my own opinion on the subject. All I can do is use the facts out there created by these scientists, and their opinions, to determine that, with the facts we have now, it's hard to argue against our impact on the climate. These same scientists along with Carl Sagan were saying in a late 80s PBS documentary that all coastal cities would be flooded by now. You are probably a low information voter as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:53:03 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... Consensus is not one of the steps in the scientific method. actually, it is. it's part of the replication phase. special relativity was only a good argument until einstein forced the scientific world to come to a consensus during the 1919 eclipse. until that consensus happened, relativity was just one guy working on his conceptual model and data. science is socially constructed--there is no way around that. "The debate is over" is not an invitation to repeat experiments to verify the hypothesis. Dogma is a social construct, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:55:25 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ... Consensus is not one of the steps in the scientific method. actually, it is. it's part of the replication phase. special relativity was only a good argument until einstein forced the scientific world to come to a consensus during the 1919 eclipse. until that consensus happened, relativity was just one guy working on his conceptual model and data. science is socially constructed--there is no way around that. "The debate is over" is not an invitation to repeat experiments to verify the hypothesis. Dogma is a social construct, too. If only Kevin Smith had chosen that dogma to rail against. It is another religion. But no Cardinal Glick. Or Gorgon. Or Serendipity  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:55:30 PM EDT
[#30]
Does this mean that Gillard and the labor party in Australia will stop their cap and trade scheme that currently charges companies $23 for every ton of CO2 they release over 25,000 tons, and will soon cap the amount of additional CO2 that can be released, which will probably create a carbon trading bubble.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 1:58:39 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know about you guys, but I'm going to believe the 97% of scientists who study the subject and believe that humans are impacting the climate vs. the 3% who don't. Again, I don't know about the rest of you but I'm not a global climate scientist and until I go back to college to grab one of those degrees, I'm not going to pretend like I have the vast knowledge needed to form my own opinion on the subject. All I can do is use the facts out there created by these scientists, and their opinions, to determine that, with the facts we have now, it's hard to argue against our impact on the climate. These same scientists along with Carl Sagan were saying in a late 80s PBS documentary that all coastal cities would be flooded by now. You are probably a low information voter as well. So because scientists were wrong once they are wrong forever and never to be trusted? So from now on scientists are always wrong and not to be trusted about weather? In all honesty, that has nothing to do with the current debate. I'd argue that the guy going against the majority of the experts is the "low information voter". Even your own opinions are theoretically based on scientific research done by other people (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually have scientific research from other people that refute man made climate change). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 2:00:05 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
If only Kevin Smith had chosen that dogma to rail against. It is another religion. But no Cardinal Glick. Or Gorgon. Or Serendipity
[/div] Al Gore is his own Golden Mooby Cow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 2:00:31 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Does this mean that Gillard and the labor party in Australia will stop their cap and trade scheme that currently charges companies $23 for every ton of CO2 they release over 25,000 tons, and will soon cap the amount of additional CO2 that can be released, which will probably create a carbon trading bubble. Have you ever seen politicians voluntarily stop stealing money? I do not understand the relevance of your question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 2:01:19 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't know about you guys, but I'm going to believe the 97% of scientists who study the subject and believe that humans are impacting the climate vs. the 3% who don't. Again, I don't know about the rest of you but I'm not a global climate scientist and until I go back to college to grab one of those degrees, I'm not going to pretend like I have the vast knowledge needed to form my own opinion on the subject. All I can do is use the facts out there created by these scientists, and their opinions, to determine that, with the facts we have now, it's hard to argue against our impact on the climate. These same scientists along with Carl Sagan were saying in a late 80s PBS documentary that all coastal cities would be flooded by now. You are probably a low information voter as well. So because scientists were wrong once they are wrong forever and never to be trusted? In all honesty, that has nothing to do with the current debate. I'd argue that the guy going against the majority of the experts is the "low information voter". Even your own opinions are theoretically based on scientific research done by other people (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually have scientific research from other people that refute man made climate change). The stats are wrong. Those NOT in consensus are not included in the sampling. Because those compiling the stats have an axe to grind. Funny how Dr. Roy Spencer is not in those stats. Wonder why? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 2:01:32 PM EDT
[#35]
The peer review process could be viewed as consensus building. Science magazine peer reviews all articles they publish and they accept AGW as a given.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 2:02:14 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Oh, so we shouldn't believe most scientists, but believe one guy at MIT, because he is smarter. Oh okay, makes sense. Cool, instead of any direct response, you resort to ad hominem. I like it. Failed climate models, phoney hockey stick, original data trashed at UEA/CRU, replaced with faked records, none of that matters. Ok, just to make this easier for you, I AGREE WITH YOU. YOU ARE RIGHT! Can you just accept that? But, we do also have climate models that do have limited predictive ability, unquestionable warming that has occurred, clearly observed changes to climate, weather, temperatures, animal migrations, ice coverages, etc. But none of that matters I guess. Okay, I'll just make it easier for you "You are right, its a conspiracy, nothing at all his different in the climate today than it was 100 years ago, but if it is, we definitely have nothing to do with it, and if we do, its definitely not going to be a problem." Your user name is somewhat ironic. In to watch Keith_J stomp egos etc. Because I point out the fatalerrors other people are making? I get it.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 2:03:19 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ... Consensus is not one of the steps in the scientific method. actually, it is. it's part of the replication phase. special relativity was only a good argument until einstein forced the scientific world to come to a consensus during the 1919 eclipse. until that consensus happened, relativity was just one guy working on his conceptual model and data. science is socially constructed--there is no way around that. Cute. Another strawman. 1000 words, go for it. Accept my challenge. Don't quote, tell us what you KNOW. 5.67x10-8 ring a bell? That is is Watts/meter2K where are your data again?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 2:04:00 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't know about you guys, but I'm going to believe the 97% of scientists who study the subject and believe that humans are impacting the climate vs. the 3% who don't. Again, I don't know about the rest of you but I'm not a global climate scientist and until I go back to college to grab one of those degrees, I'm not going to pretend like I have the vast knowledge needed to form my own opinion on the subject. All I can do is use the facts out there created by these scientists, and their opinions, to determine that, with the facts we have now, it's hard to argue against our impact on the climate. These same scientists along with Carl Sagan were saying in a late 80s PBS documentary that all coastal cities would be flooded by now. You are probably a low information voter as well. So because scientists were wrong once they are wrong forever and never to be trusted? In all honesty, that has nothing to do with the current debate. I'd argue that the guy going against the majority of the experts is the "low information voter". Even your own opinions are theoretically based on scientific research done by other people (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually have scientific research from other people that refute man made climate change). The stats are wrong. Those NOT in consensus are not included in the sampling. Because those compiling the stats have an axe to grind. Funny how Dr. Roy Spencer is not in those stats. Wonder why? "Its a conspiracy!" You guys should just copy and past that phrase, it would make your posts must faster. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 2:05:31 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
"Its a conspiracy!" You guys should just copy and past that phrase, it would make your posts must faster. That's it? Really? That's all you have? OK, then . . . . . . |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 2:05:43 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know about you guys, but I'm going to believe the 97% of scientists who study the subject and believe that humans are impacting the climate vs. the 3% who don't. Again, I don't know about the rest of you but I'm not a global climate scientist and until I go back to college to grab one of those degrees, I'm not going to pretend like I have the vast knowledge needed to form my own opinion on the subject. All I can do is use the facts out there created by these scientists, and their opinions, to determine that, with the facts we have now, it's hard to argue against our impact on the climate. These same scientists along with Carl Sagan were saying in a late 80s PBS documentary that all coastal cities would be flooded by now. You are probably a low information voter as well. So because scientists were wrong once they are wrong forever and never to be trusted? In all honesty, that has nothing to do with the current debate. I'd argue that the guy going against the majority of the experts is the "low information voter". Even your own opinions are theoretically based on scientific research done by other people (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually have scientific research from other people that refute man made climate change). The stats are wrong. Those NOT in consensus are not included in the sampling. Because those compiling the stats have an axe to grind. Funny how Dr. Roy Spencer is not in those stats. Wonder why? Ahhh, those stats are wrong. There's always going to be one guy or another claiming conspiracy. The fact remains, those people are in the very small minority. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 2:06:53 PM EDT
[#41]
I make no claim to any expertise in climate science but to claim AGW has been debunked when it's obvious it hasn't is silly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 2:09:14 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
I make no claim to any expertise in climate science but to claim AGW has been debunked when it's obvious it hasn't is silly. Low-information voters haven't been keeping up. Failed GCMs. Failed, phony Hockey Stick. UAE/CRU fraud. etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 2:10:30 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Tell that to Science magazine, not me.
Quoted:
I make no claim to any expertise in climate science but to claim AGW has been debunked when it's obvious it hasn't is silly. Low-information voters haven't been keeping up. Failed GCMs. Failed, phony Hockey Stick. UAE/CRU fraud. etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 2:11:03 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Quoted: "Its a conspiracy!" You guys should just copy and past that phrase, it would make your posts must faster. That's it? Really? That's all you have? OK, then . . . . . . As I've said. There is plenty of data out there that's shows notable changes in the climate. You are correct that models have flaws (and have missed predictions), but you act like its some religion or something, where if you disprove the tiniest piece of it, or it needs to revise itself in some way to account for new information, it means it has all been "debunked". Somehow, I don't tend to believe the guy who spent half the thread posting pictures of Al Gore is an authority on the topic. Just so you know where I'm not saying we need to do something about climate change if CO2 is contributing to it, but rather, if it is happening, we damn sure better have a realistic understanding of it. Not the liberal "fear-mongering" understanding of it, or the conservative deny on all fronts regardless if the denial even makes sense or not understanding of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 2:11:41 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know about you guys, but I'm going to believe the 97% of scientists who study the subject and believe that humans are impacting the climate vs. the 3% who don't. Again, I don't know about the rest of you but I'm not a global climate scientist and until I go back to college to grab one of those degrees, I'm not going to pretend like I have the vast knowledge needed to form my own opinion on the subject. All I can do is use the facts out there created by these scientists, and their opinions, to determine that, with the facts we have now, it's hard to argue against our impact on the climate. These same scientists along with Carl Sagan were saying in a late 80s PBS documentary that all coastal cities would be flooded by now. You are probably a low information voter as well. So because scientists were wrong once they are wrong forever and never to be trusted? In all honesty, that has nothing to do with the current debate. I'd argue that the guy going against the majority of the experts is the "low information voter". Even your own opinions are theoretically based on scientific research done by other people (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually have scientific research from other people that refute man made climate change). The stats are wrong. Those NOT in consensus are not included in the sampling. Because those compiling the stats have an axe to grind. Funny how Dr. Roy Spencer is not in those stats. Wonder why? Ahhh, those stats are wrong. There's always going to be one guy or another claiming conspiracy. The fact remains, those people are in the very small minority. Well, it's much more than one, but you already knew that. And your use of the word "conspiracy" is silly. When you're wrong, you're just wrong. There ain't no conspiracy about it. Well, unless you're paranoid, that is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 2:12:18 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does this mean that Gillard and the labor party in Australia will stop their cap and trade scheme that currently charges companies $23 for every ton of CO2 they release over 25,000 tons, and will soon cap the amount of additional CO2 that can be released, which will probably create a carbon trading bubble. Have you ever seen politicians voluntarily stop stealing money? I do not understand the relevance of your question. I'm joking Obvious they won't voluntarily end it, it would take public outcry. It was never created to curb climate change, it was created to give the govt more money and to benefit insiders. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 2:12:52 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: .. Ahhh, those stats are wrong. There's always going to be one guy or another claiming conspiracy. The fact remains, those people are in the very small minority. Wrong. I already mentioned Dr. Spencer. Then we have Joe Bastardi. Dr. William Gray. David Douglass. The list goes on. Their minority is just a function of ignorance on those who have an agenda. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 2:14:28 PM EDT
[#48]
Mankind used to just roll with the punches when it came to any climate changes.
Now we are arrogant enough to think we can change it. I would rather go back to the older "climate model" of get the fuck over it and.....adapt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 2:16:37 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
I thought you had to burn that clutter out pretty frequently or it got over-grown and became a huge fire hazard. Don't tell me the Fed's have fucked this simple equation up too? for decades |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2013 2:16:52 PM EDT
[#50]
I only meant to point out the abandonment of the phrase "Global Warming" in lieu of "Global Climate Disruption" "Global Climate Change" "Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions" as the propaganda mill dealt with it's continuing domino collapse of failures.
I wasn't disappointed, I guess some of you proponents didn't get the memo from Crazy Phil at UAE/CRU. The phrase has fallen from favor. There is a reason. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
