What's not to like?
- Thread starter davidallen
- Start date
Am I reading it wrong? A lot of the people surveyed in this are engineers or work for the oil and gas industry in Canada and don't really have the credentials to validate their conclusion. So, I don't think this is a very valid study. Plus, this is kind of an editorial, isn't it? Right next to the by-line it says, "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own."
People with degrees in climatology and environmental science DO agree. There are a lot of publications out there that back this up. (http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf Why are climatologists wrong? Are they lying, willfully misleading the public? Are they under governmental pressure? Are they just wrong?
or it's Bush's fault, you're all redneck racists, global warming is undeniable, or I'm the greatest attorney in the world and you couldn't cut it in the private sector so now you're sucking on the govt teat, or I'm an enlightened Oregonian with a frikin ewok house in my backyard and you can't even buy 6 point beer and wine at the pigly wigley. Your point is?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-14/record-coverage-of-antarctic-sea-ice/5742668
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-20/global-warming-expedition-stopped-its-tracks-arctic-sea-ice
You can believe the hype, or you can believe your eyes. I like photographic evidence myself.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-20/global-warming-expedition-stopped-its-tracks-arctic-sea-ice
You can believe the hype, or you can believe your eyes. I like photographic evidence myself.
I just can't understand the motivation to constantly deny climate change. It wouldn't matter if there was consensus, they'd just keep digging until they found another argument. The consequences are pretty severe, and the skeptics basically plug in the same theories that big tobacco used for years.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info
I'll ask you again what AMFG has to do with the science of climate change? What does big Al at a lectern have to do with the underlying facts of the matter? And finally why would you, an otherwise reasonable man, lets this hick from Tennessee so push your buttons as to keep you from making a decision based on facts and not tangential bullshit?
Beginning of flow chart
Linerals
That article is comparing data from the 1800's to now. If the earth is over 6000 years old that is hardly a big enough sample to prove anything.
Linerals
That article is comparing data from the 1800's to now. If the earth is over 6000 years old that is hardly a big enough sample to prove anything.
Is that a denial or a repudiation of shit data samples?
Again, denial of climate change isn't really what you are upset about. You don't like the fact that not everyone agrees that it's caused by factors we can control. Consider this last statement carefully before puking up some lame one size fits all bumper sticker philosophy.
A lot of really smart people are skeptical that global warming is caused by humans. I don't have evidence that global warming hysteria is a conspiracy, if that's what you're asking.
The article is not an editorial. Isn't any article an opinion expressed by its author?
Why did the term "global warming" evolve into "climate change"?
I've seen data set upon data set. Decades, centuries, millennia, what do you want? They've put it together from every angle, for about every time span and it's never good enough.
What would it take to convince you? Is there anything?
Because some people are stupid enough to believe that for the planet to be warming that EVERY DAY would have to be warmer. You know, you see dumb asses carrying a snowball into the Senate chamber when an late snowfall occurs to "prove" that the planet isn't warming...
Whether carbon impacts climate change isn't resolved by whether other factors can also cause it. Im sure there are lots of variables on both micro and macro levels, ranging from one cloudburst on one extreme and long-term carbon content in the atmosphere on the other, with lots of stuff in between.
For one thing, it is always easy to punch holes in a construct. If there is another cause, then what is it? How long does it last? Is there historical precedent? (my understanding is there is a documented record of extreme carbon and higher temperatures over long spans of time. Why isn't that compelling?) What is the evidence of another cause? Does anyone credible endorse it as an alternative to carbon? Don't give me a cartoon villain from Exxon Mobil or a Breitbart blogger. I am talking a degreed expert with some credentials that defended a doctorate and isn't just a hack. I'm no expert and have to go from other people's scientific representations. I'm all ears.
If I believed my air conditioner was a bigger threat than ISIS I wouldn't have one.
Looks to me like we are currently in a trend of increasing carbon dioxide production that began around 50,000 years or so ago. It also looks like the planet has been here many times before:
Are you just too thick to get what I'm saying? You don't need to convince me there is climate change. You really don't even need to convince me we might be able to negatively influence it.
Convincing me that anything we - individually - can do about it is another matter.
1. What would actually reverse it?
2. Will literally ANY other country tie a hand begind their back with us?
3. What personal commitment do you expect for something so low on my list of daily priorities so you can stop worrying?
https://newrepublic.com/article/135684/declare-war-climate-change-mobilize-wwii
Dumb shit like this article is why it's hard to listen to any of the political blowhards of the left talk about man-made climate change and take them seriously. Climate change caused Boko Haram and the Syrian war? Sounds legit.
Dumb shit like this article is why it's hard to listen to any of the political blowhards of the left talk about man-made climate change and take them seriously. Climate change caused Boko Haram and the Syrian war? Sounds legit.
Those are all reasonable questions.
1. Less carbon.
2. Yes.
3. I don't expect any personal commitment until it's demonstrated that a commitment is shared by a meaningful amount of people and that it would make a difference.
So explain where the anger comes from about the issue? It's like you're mad that people want to take action against a pretty serious problem. I don't understand the emotion about it.
This. There are no altruistic motives at work here. This is why Soros was balls deep in algore's ass,making him the movement's face and spokesperson.
It's a globslist destabilization scheme - just like the flood of refugees, BLM etc. and Soros is strangely ubiquitous in all of these things.
The naked power grab aspect of it is what pisses me off.
THAT is why you disbelieve the science -- because some people that also believe it want to used it for foul reasons. Legit logic.
"The deputy minister of the South American Environmental Bureau of Regional Ecological Departmental Institute says it will enable worldwide fluoridation and vaccination.
Gawddamn I gotta be against that, so it must not be true. "
And that's how it happens.
"The deputy minister of the South American Environmental Bureau of Regional Ecological Departmental Institute says it will enable worldwide fluoridation and vaccination.
Gawddamn I gotta be against that, so it must not be true. "
And that's how it happens.
Mega you sound just like Alex Jones, use the same lingo, same ideas, same issues and should be aware how often he's wrong.
Often wrong like the climate hysterics?
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...k-expires-climate-change-fanatics-wrong-again
I might be able to read their shit with a straight face if they didn't rush to move the goal posts with every dumbass prediction they've gotten wrong. If the science is "settled," they should actually be getting at least a few things right, right? When you have to move the goal posts and manipulate data to fit your narrative, that isn't science, it's political bullshit.
What if I told you that the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 400 ppm? That kind of puts a different spin on that graph.Looks to me like we are currently in a trend of increasing carbon dioxide production that began around 50,000 years or so ago. It also looks like the planet has been here many times before:
Similar threads
