(03-01-2015 08:27 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 08:24 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 10:01 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 08:24 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  Scientific community nearly unanimous suggests climate change is occurring for the worst,

Warmth is bad? That would make cooling good then, right?

That is so wrong and I don't care if you call yourself a scientist or not, you're an imbecile if you believe that.

I would trust scientists more that some imbecile that got fired from Lowes. BTW, if areas get warmer it can breed more diseases thus, indeed making warmer bad.

Is that why the world has prospered during warming trends and declined as it cooled?

And who got fired from Lowes? You doxxing?

The Marshall prop with a mop poster.

The libs and their fairy tale of global warming turns into the fairy tale of climate change and any guesses on the next weather fairy tale the left manufactures? You have to love these libs that just follow party discipline without questioning the so called "settled science" when it is constantly proven to be a fairy tale. It really defines the left.

(03-01-2015 08:36 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 08:27 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 08:24 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 10:01 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 08:24 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  Scientific community nearly unanimous suggests climate change is occurring for the worst,

Warmth is bad? That would make cooling good then, right?

That is so wrong and I don't care if you call yourself a scientist or not, you're an imbecile if you believe that.

I would trust scientists more that some imbecile that got fired from Lowes. BTW, if areas get warmer it can breed more diseases thus, indeed making warmer bad.

Is that why the world has prospered during warming trends and declined as it cooled?

And who got fired from Lowes? You doxxing?

The Marshall prop with a mop poster.

Robbie lives in a fantasy world, apparently he thinks I worked for Lowes and was fired, nothing in that belief is true, but let him believe that as he heads off for his job a Walmart.

(03-01-2015 09:41 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  The libs and their fairy tale of global warming turns into the fairy tale of climate change and any guesses on the next weather fairy tale the left manufactures? You have to love these libs that just follow party discipline without questioning the so called "settled science" when it is constantly proven to be a fairy tale. It really defines the left.

Owl, here's one for you.

(03-01-2015 09:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 09:41 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  The libs and their fairy tale of global warming turns into the fairy tale of climate change and any guesses on the next weather fairy tale the left manufactures? You have to love these libs that just follow party discipline without questioning the so called "settled science" when it is constantly proven to be a fairy tale. It really defines the left.

Owl, here's one for you.

But let's be careful about defining what the "fairy tale" really involves. It's not just that measured temperatures are higher in some recent time period than previously. The full fairy tale requires something like all of the following:

A. Temperatures are getting warmer (there have been some notable data fudges here, but let's assume this is valid), AND
B. Man-made greenhouses gases are a significant contributor (based largely upon climate models that haven't proved as accurate as one would hope), AND
C. If not checked, this affect will accelerate and produce a 2-degree Celsius increase in average global temperatures over the next century (based on long-range extrapolations using those climate models that haven't proved reliable in the short run), AND
D. The impact of such a temperature change will devastate life as we know it, BUT
E. If we do X, Y, and Z, we can reduce the increase to 1.8 degrees, which will be okay, AND THEREFORE
F. We must do X, Y, and Z regardless of cost.

I think the vast majority of doubters start to disbelieve around B or C or D.

The problem I have is that the AGW alarmists keep trying to say, wow, if you don't believe F, you must not believe A, or alternatively that A implies F. If you don't believe F, then you are portrayed as denying the settled science of A (maybe A and B).

My problem is that if A, B, C, and D are true, then E and F are nonsense. Regardless of whether the AGW alarmists have the science right, E and F above prove that they don't have the math right.

(03-01-2015 07:26 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 07:02 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Wrong again. I doubt you will find a good portion of republicans that deny global warming outright. What they are hesitant about is the impact of man-made global warming, which doesn't come even close to have 97% of scientists behind it.

I explained a little about why the earthb is warming and why it isn't the catastrophic situation most libs make it out to be. Your silly little cartoon claims a 200 meter rise in sea levels when there is hardly an conclusive evidence or even consensus among scientists on that 'fact'. Being an alarmist is much worse than questioning the science

Yes, over 97% of all scientist who have published research on the subject matter "support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". Not only that, the same study found that "the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

You need to look elsewhere for your news because it's clear you're not getting the objective truth. Whether or not you want to believe that this is a conspiracy or that the threat is overexagerrated is your own prerogative, but the fact is that there is a scientific consensus on the issue of anthropogenic climate change.

Now, didnt we just have a little talk about what being a scientist was, and what being an ideologue was?

If you want to believe in science, you are going to have to put away your ideological blinders and look for the true facts. If you are going to get played like a fiddle by liberal manipulators, you will never be a true scientist. Touting distorted, manipulated, or downright incorrect data is not scientific. It is the opposite of scientific.

You are apparently at a crucial crossroads in your life where you need to make that distinction. It will take commitment and discipline to be scientific. Real data will often times prove us wrong. It has and continually will. Embrace that so that it leads you further into knowledge.

If you want to be a scientist, you will need to challenge the data given to you, and be able to pivot away from something if it doesnt hold up. You DO NOT go out and look for manipulated data or fluff pieces that agrees with your hypothesis and pimp them as fact. Not if you want to be a scientist.

(03-01-2015 08:10 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 08:24 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 06:26 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Get ready for the posts from the moonbat leftist here that it is "climate change" now and not "global warming". When one lie is disproven, they simply make up another one to promote their agenda. Telling the truth is not what Libs care about.

Difference between weather and climate. Learn it clown. Scientific community nearly unanimous suggests climate change is occurring for the worst, not sure why people with no education are arguing. Heck, to understand this phenomenon all you need is basic high school science.

You global warming circle jerkers need to read AND EXPLAIN this. This is what your leader on global warming predicted would happen by 2014, and this is what the actual scientific data said happened by 2014.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/envir...rong-again

Five years ago at a UN Conference on Climate Change, Al Gore predicted that, global warming having reached such an unbridled pitch, the North Pole might be completely ice-free during the summer of 2014. This climate change crusader had made the same claim when he accepted the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Was he right? Let's take a look.

The Danish Meteorological Institute's (DMI) Centre for Ocean and Ice closely monitors Arctic sea ice extent and publishes a monthly plot on its website. According to DMI, 2014 is the second summer in a row that the ice cap has expanded. Data from the U.S. National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) agrees, showing 2014's summer ice well within the average range for the years 1961-2010. In fact, NSIDC's website points out an ice extent decline rate of "slightly less than the average" for the month of August.

This year's sea ice surge is no trifle. The U.K.'s Daily Mail notes that NSIDC's numbers indicate a 43 percent increase of 1.71 million square kilometers of ice over the course of the last two summers. DMI's statistics are even more dramatic because of a different measuring system that agency uses. It reports a 63 percent rise — from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometers — over the same time period.


So there you have it, your king of the global warming super jerk boldly predicting the north pole could be ice free during the summer of 2014.

Now, I know its tough on some "educated" people that believed this crap. But explain to me just how "educated" you really are if you continue to believe this crap.

And since you guys seem to get so giddy over cartoons, here's one that matches Gores prediction AND the actual scientific data. Enjoy.

(03-01-2015 08:27 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 08:24 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 10:01 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 08:24 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  Scientific community nearly unanimous suggests climate change is occurring for the worst,

Warmth is bad? That would make cooling good then, right?

That is so wrong and I don't care if you call yourself a scientist or not, you're an imbecile if you believe that.

I would trust scientists more that some imbecile that got fired from Lowes. BTW, if areas get warmer it can breed more diseases thus, indeed making warmer bad.

Is that why the world has prospered during warming trends and declined as it cooled?

And who got fired from Lowes? You doxxing?

Only conservative posters get disciplined around her for that. Robs will get a pass, if you or I said anything like that we would get banned.

(03-01-2015 11:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 09:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 09:41 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  The libs and their fairy tale of global warming turns into the fairy tale of climate change and any guesses on the next weather fairy tale the left manufactures? You have to love these libs that just follow party discipline without questioning the so called "settled science" when it is constantly proven to be a fairy tale. It really defines the left.

Owl, here's one for you.

But let's be careful about defining what the "fairy tale" really involves. It's not just that measured temperatures are higher in some recent time period than previously. The full fairy tale requires something like all of the following:

A. Temperatures are getting warmer (there have been some notable data fudges here, but let's assume this is valid), AND
B. Man-made greenhouses gases are a significant contributor (based largely upon climate models that haven't proved as accurate as one would hope), AND
C. If not checked, this affect will accelerate and produce a 2-degree Celsius increase in average global temperatures over the next century (based on long-range extrapolations using those climate models that haven't proved reliable in the short run), AND
D. The impact of such a temperature change will devastate life as we know it, BUT
E. If we do X, Y, and Z, we can reduce the increase to 1.8 degrees, which will be okay, AND THEREFORE
F. We must do X, Y, and Z regardless of cost.

I think the vast majority of doubters start to disbelieve around B or C or D.

The problem I have is that the AGW alarmists keep trying to say, wow, if you don't believe F, you must not believe A, or alternatively that A implies F. If you don't believe F, then you are portrayed as denying the settled science of A (maybe A and B).

My problem is that if A, B, C, and D are true, then E and F are nonsense. Regardless of whether the AGW alarmists have the science right, E and F above prove that they don't have the math right.

If we did E and F, that would slow down the impact for now, reducing the impact later, and give us more time to provide more proof and get a better handle on what the impact will be and what we can do about it. Doing nothing would then make certain that if the dire effects start to happen, anything we do would have to be more drastic to have any impact.

And this doesn't dispute that more than half the people on this board think that AGW is not real. Thus, none of them will be willing to do anything about CO2 production, because there is no reason to.

(03-02-2015 09:04 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  If we did E and F, that would slow down the impact for now, reducing the impact later, and give us more time to provide more proof and get a better handle on what the impact will be and what we can do about it. Doing nothing would then make certain that if the dire effects start to happen, anything we do would have to be more drastic to have any impact.
And this doesn't dispute that more than half the people on this board think that AGW is not real. Thus, none of them will be willing to do anything about CO2 production, because there is no reason to.

If E and F come at no cost, perhaps so. But they don't. And the costs must be weighed against the benefits. This is where I have a problem. It's like the stereotypical snake oil or used car salesman. Create anxiety in order to get people to do something that's otherwise nonsensical. There are sensible and rational things that can be done. And doing stupid stuff comes often with the opportunity cost of depriving the chance to do something sensible.

And again I think you're being dishonest with your classification. There may be a few people who disbelieve A, but I think the vast majority, if not all, of the questioning is about B, C, and D. And quite frankly, there are serious questions to be answered.

(03-02-2015 09:04 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 11:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 09:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 09:41 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  The libs and their fairy tale of global warming turns into the fairy tale of climate change and any guesses on the next weather fairy tale the left manufactures? You have to love these libs that just follow party discipline without questioning the so called "settled science" when it is constantly proven to be a fairy tale. It really defines the left.

Owl, here's one for you.

But let's be careful about defining what the "fairy tale" really involves. It's not just that measured temperatures are higher in some recent time period than previously. The full fairy tale requires something like all of the following:

A. Temperatures are getting warmer (there have been some notable data fudges here, but let's assume this is valid), AND
B. Man-made greenhouses gases are a significant contributor (based largely upon climate models that haven't proved as accurate as one would hope), AND
C. If not checked, this affect will accelerate and produce a 2-degree Celsius increase in average global temperatures over the next century (based on long-range extrapolations using those climate models that haven't proved reliable in the short run), AND
D. The impact of such a temperature change will devastate life as we know it, BUT
E. If we do X, Y, and Z, we can reduce the increase to 1.8 degrees, which will be okay, AND THEREFORE
F. We must do X, Y, and Z regardless of cost.

I think the vast majority of doubters start to disbelieve around B or C or D.

The problem I have is that the AGW alarmists keep trying to say, wow, if you don't believe F, you must not believe A, or alternatively that A implies F. If you don't believe F, then you are portrayed as denying the settled science of A (maybe A and B).

My problem is that if A, B, C, and D are true, then E and F are nonsense. Regardless of whether the AGW alarmists have the science right, E and F above prove that they don't have the math right.

If we did E and F, that would slow down the impact for now, reducing the impact later, and give us more time to provide more proof and get a better handle on what the impact will be and what we can do about it. Doing nothing would then make certain that if the dire effects start to happen, anything we do would have to be more drastic to have any impact.

And this doesn't dispute that more than half the people on this board think that AGW is not real. Thus, none of them will be willing to do anything about CO2 production, because there is no reason to.

Band C are unproven and therefore D and E are completely hypothetical, which leaves no solid reasoning for F. But by all means lets rush to spend more money.

IMO, it's dumb to try to dismiss the notion that the earth is warming. We can see the overall changes in temperatures over a period of time. The problem comes from trying to pin the majority of the warming trend on CO2 emissions made by man. The climate models have not accurately predicted man's influence on the climate (if any). If it is possible for us to slow down global warming by cutting emissions, on a worldwide scale it will never happen. The 3rd world will never cut emissions because they value economic improvements over the risks of climate change. When most of your population is living in filth and are poor, buying food becomes more important than worrying how future generations will be affected by a warming earth. Nations like China, Russia and all oil producing countries won't fight for emissions cuts either. The Middle East has little else than petroleum, and nations determined to increase their power and influence on the world stage will not sink billions or trillions of dollars to "fix" something that already works fine to begin with. So the only nations who appear open to doing anything is Europe and North America. Even here, economics will trump climate change. The bottom line is if you can't prove definitively what our role is in affecting climate, nothing will happen. On top of that, even if you can prove it, too many nations will refuse for various other reasons - especially when it means survival by combating other issues on a much smaller scale be it wars, recessions, depressions and a general lack of wealth to begin with.

(02-28-2015 05:59 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Save the polar bears

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/nyr...&referrer=

Proof of climate change?

(03-02-2015 09:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 09:04 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  If we did E and F, that would slow down the impact for now, reducing the impact later, and give us more time to provide more proof and get a better handle on what the impact will be and what we can do about it. Doing nothing would then make certain that if the dire effects start to happen, anything we do would have to be more drastic to have any impact.
And this doesn't dispute that more than half the people on this board think that AGW is not real. Thus, none of them will be willing to do anything about CO2 production, because there is no reason to.

If E and F come at no cost, perhaps so. But they don't. And the costs must be weighed against the benefits. This is where I have a problem. It's like the stereotypical snake oil or used car salesman. Create anxiety in order to get people to do something that's otherwise nonsensical. There are sensible and rational things that can be done. And doing stupid stuff comes often with the opportunity cost of depriving the chance to do something sensible.

And again I think you're being dishonest with your classification. There may be a few people who disbelieve A, but I think the vast majority, if not all, of the questioning is about B, C, and D. And quite frankly, there are serious questions to be answered.

I was saying that more than half the board did not believe AGW was real. AGW = anthropogenic global warming. Meaning they don't believe that B is real. Which is also what you're saying. So if the Republican politicians believe the same, then there would be no instance under which they'd spend ANY money, because they would figure there's nothing we should do, since there is no benefit, thus cost/benefit would not look good.

FWIW, I'm not arguing that it isn't difficult, especially if China continues to build coal plants and not cut back. So maybe there's little we can do. I'm just skeptical that anybody is looking that hard, as it seems they don't feel they have reason to.

(03-02-2015 10:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 05:59 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Save the polar bears

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/nyr...&referrer=

Proof of climate change?

Damn people, can we get on the same discussion? Miko just hinted at it a couple posts ago. There aren't people saying the climate is not changing. Re-read Miko's post to see the jist of the discussion.

(03-02-2015 11:44 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 10:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 05:59 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Save the polar bears

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/nyr...&referrer=

Proof of climate change?

Damn people, can we get on the same discussion? Miko just hinted at it a couple posts ago. There aren't people saying the climate is not changing. Re-read Miko's post to see the jist of the discussion.

Well, the original post wasn't about that.

(03-02-2015 11:53 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 11:44 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 10:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 05:59 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Save the polar bears

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/nyr...&referrer=

Proof of climate change?

Damn people, can we get on the same discussion? Miko just hinted at it a couple posts ago. There aren't people saying the climate is not changing. Re-read Miko's post to see the jist of the discussion.

Well, the original post wasn't about that.

That's what it's morphed into over the past 10 pages

(03-02-2015 11:53 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 11:44 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 10:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 05:59 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Save the polar bears

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/nyr...&referrer=

Proof of climate change?

Damn people, can we get on the same discussion? Miko just hinted at it a couple posts ago. There aren't people saying the climate is not changing. Re-read Miko's post to see the jist of the discussion.

Well, the original post wasn't about that.

that would be akin to congress.....

No noticeable climate change here over the past 35 years. Some summers are hotter than others and some winters are colder, but that is weather patterns, not climate.

(03-02-2015 12:10 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  No noticeable climate change here over the past 35 years. Some summers are hotter than others and some winters are colder, but that is weather patterns, not climate.

Climate doesn't change over a period of 35 years, weather patterns do. Yes the climate is changing as is has done since the formation of the seas and weather began. People on both sides have to stop looking at a time period as insignificant as 35 year or even 150 years. Notable change has to be seen over longer periods of time to eliminate outliers (which in the case of climate can be periods far longer our lifetimes).