Hello There, Guest! Registered users see far less ads! Register today and join our virtual tailgate. (Login — Register)

Post Reply 
Is this why climate change skepticism exists?
Author Message
dmacfour Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,813
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 67
I Root For: Idaho Vandals
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Is this why climate change skepticism exists?
(05-29-2013 02:21 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  
(05-29-2013 02:19 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  No offense, but that's kind of what's happening here. Instead of acknowledging that a misinformation campaign is actually happening and has been admitted to by people involved, most of the replies jump to addressing other concerns.

And this violates rule 2. Another straw man. Your straw man feeds your ad hominem.

And the above is exactly what you did in the consensus thread when you told us what the author "ought" to have done.

That's not a damn strawman. It's on record as happening.
05-29-2013 02:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,867
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Is this why climate change skepticism exists?
(05-29-2013 02:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  
(05-29-2013 02:21 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  
(05-29-2013 02:19 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  No offense, but that's kind of what's happening here. Instead of acknowledging that a misinformation campaign is actually happening and has been admitted to by people involved, most of the replies jump to addressing other concerns.

And this violates rule 2. Another straw man. Your straw man feeds your ad hominem.

And the above is exactly what you did in the consensus thread when you told us what the author "ought" to have done.

That's not a damn strawman. It's on record as happening.

Your characterization of other's arguments is the straw man.

I'd like to add another commandment. Don't engage in debate unless you are well acquainted with deductive reasoning.
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2013 02:34 PM by Ninerfan1.)
05-29-2013 02:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dmacfour Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,813
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 67
I Root For: Idaho Vandals
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Is this why climate change skepticism exists?
(05-29-2013 02:34 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  
(05-29-2013 02:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  
(05-29-2013 02:21 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  
(05-29-2013 02:19 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  No offense, but that's kind of what's happening here. Instead of acknowledging that a misinformation campaign is actually happening and has been admitted to by people involved, most of the replies jump to addressing other concerns.

And this violates rule 2. Another straw man. Your straw man feeds your ad hominem.

And the above is exactly what you did in the consensus thread when you told us what the author "ought" to have done.

That's not a damn strawman. It's on record as happening.

Your characterization of other's arguments is the straw man.

I'd like to add another commandment. Don't engage in debate unless you are well acquainted with deductive reasoning.

You're running in circles and haven't addressed the actual issue. A public relations campaign that involves misinformation and paying for specific results.
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2013 03:04 PM by dmacfour.)
05-29-2013 03:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
smn1256 Offline
I miss Tripster
*

Posts: 28,847
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 337
I Root For: Lower taxes
Location: North Mexico
Post: #44
RE: Is this why climate change skepticism exists?
I'll tell you why climate change skepticism exists:

First of all, it was only a few decades ago when the liberal alarmists said the world was turning into a snowball and we were all going to freeze to death. They had their scientists, their studies, their undeniable proof and what happened? What happened is that we are here today saying the planet is getting to hot.

Then there are the blowhards like Al Gore who put this global warming crap out their, makes millions from it, yet he won't debate a single person about this. For him, it's all about him talking and us listening. And does he live a lifestyle that contributes to what he said is the cause of GW? Absolutely. Does he want us to make the sacrifices while he lives all rich and comfy? Absolutely. The man has no credibility.

And the science behind this is argued by both sides. It's sorta like a court room where one side puts on his expert only to be offset by the expert on the other side. Who do we believe? sorry, but reasonable doubt won't allow me to convict. Bite me.

Then there is changing the name from Global Warming to Climate Change. Why? Scare tactics are a part of it, I'm sure. It's hard to argue global warming when you're freezing your nuts off. And most of all, it covers everything so no matter what happens there will always be a problem in need of more study, research, and dollars.

Global warming is a scam. People who profit from it are using the multitude of the left's useful idiots to get their message out and it's working. Why don't those same useful idiots just write a check to the Al Gores of the world and we can be done with it, which is what this is all about any way.
05-29-2013 03:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dmacfour Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,813
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 67
I Root For: Idaho Vandals
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Is this why climate change skepticism exists?
(05-29-2013 03:04 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I'll tell you why climate change skepticism exists:

First of all, it was only a few decades ago when the liberal alarmists said the world was turning into a snowball and we were all going to freeze to death. They had their scientists, their studies, their undeniable proof and what happened? What happened is that we are here today saying the planet is getting to hot.

Then there are the blowhards like Al Gore who put this global warming crap out their, makes millions from it, yet he won't debate a single person about this. For him, it's all about him talking and us listening. And does he live a lifestyle that contributes to what he said is the cause of GW? Absolutely. Does he want us to make the sacrifices while he lives all rich and comfy? Absolutely. The man has no credibility.

And the science behind this is argued by both sides. It's sorta like a court room where one side puts on his expert only to be offset by the expert on the other side. Who do we believe? sorry, but reasonable doubt won't allow me to convict. Bite me.

Then there is changing the name from Global Warming to Climate Change. Why? Scare tactics are a part of it, I'm sure. It's hard to argue global warming when you're freezing your nuts off. And most of all, it covers everything so no matter what happens there will always be a problem in need of more study, research, and dollars.

Global warming is a scam. People who profit from it are using the multitude of the left's useful idiots to get their message out and it's working. Why don't those same useful idiots just write a check to the Al Gores of the world and we can be done with it, which is what this is all about any way.

Congratulations, this is exactly what they want you to do. The imbalance between one side and the other is staggering, and the only reason you don't see this is because the right wing media is trying to make this look like an undecided issue. The skeptic side of this argument is a number of publications that makes up less than 1% of research on global warming (I think it's something like half of one percent).
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2013 03:14 PM by dmacfour.)
05-29-2013 03:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
smn1256 Offline
I miss Tripster
*

Posts: 28,847
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 337
I Root For: Lower taxes
Location: North Mexico
Post: #46
RE: Is this why climate change skepticism exists?
(05-29-2013 03:07 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  
(05-29-2013 03:04 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I'll tell you why climate change skepticism exists:

First of all, it was only a few decades ago when the liberal alarmists said the world was turning into a snowball and we were all going to freeze to death. They had their scientists, their studies, their undeniable proof and what happened? What happened is that we are here today saying the planet is getting to hot.

Then there are the blowhards like Al Gore who put this global warming crap out their, makes millions from it, yet he won't debate a single person about this. For him, it's all about him talking and us listening. And does he live a lifestyle that contributes to what he said is the cause of GW? Absolutely. Does he want us to make the sacrifices while he lives all rich and comfy? Absolutely. The man has no credibility.

And the science behind this is argued by both sides. It's sorta like a court room where one side puts on his expert only to be offset by the expert on the other side. Who do we believe? sorry, but reasonable doubt won't allow me to convict. Bite me.

Then there is changing the name from Global Warming to Climate Change. Why? Scare tactics are a part of it, I'm sure. It's hard to argue global warming when you're freezing your nuts off. And most of all, it covers everything so no matter what happens there will always be a problem in need of more study, research, and dollars.

Global warming is a scam. People who profit from it are using the multitude of the left's useful idiots to get their message out and it's working. Why don't those same useful idiots just write a check to the Al Gores of the world and we can be done with it, which is what this is all about any way.

Congratulations, this is exactly what they want you to do. The imbalance between one side and the other is staggering, and the only reason you don't see this is because the right wing media is trying to make this look like an undecided issue. The skeptic side of this argument is a number of publications that makes up less than 1% of research on global warming (I think it's something like half of one percent).

Sorry bro, but that doesn't fly with me because the same crap happened with global cooling. During that time the skeptics were also in the minority.
05-29-2013 03:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dmacfour Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,813
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 67
I Root For: Idaho Vandals
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Is this why climate change skepticism exists?
(05-29-2013 03:16 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  
(05-29-2013 03:07 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  
(05-29-2013 03:04 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I'll tell you why climate change skepticism exists:

First of all, it was only a few decades ago when the liberal alarmists said the world was turning into a snowball and we were all going to freeze to death. They had their scientists, their studies, their undeniable proof and what happened? What happened is that we are here today saying the planet is getting to hot.

Then there are the blowhards like Al Gore who put this global warming crap out their, makes millions from it, yet he won't debate a single person about this. For him, it's all about him talking and us listening. And does he live a lifestyle that contributes to what he said is the cause of GW? Absolutely. Does he want us to make the sacrifices while he lives all rich and comfy? Absolutely. The man has no credibility.

And the science behind this is argued by both sides. It's sorta like a court room where one side puts on his expert only to be offset by the expert on the other side. Who do we believe? sorry, but reasonable doubt won't allow me to convict. Bite me.

Then there is changing the name from Global Warming to Climate Change. Why? Scare tactics are a part of it, I'm sure. It's hard to argue global warming when you're freezing your nuts off. And most of all, it covers everything so no matter what happens there will always be a problem in need of more study, research, and dollars.

Global warming is a scam. People who profit from it are using the multitude of the left's useful idiots to get their message out and it's working. Why don't those same useful idiots just write a check to the Al Gores of the world and we can be done with it, which is what this is all about any way.

Congratulations, this is exactly what they want you to do. The imbalance between one side and the other is staggering, and the only reason you don't see this is because the right wing media is trying to make this look like an undecided issue. The skeptic side of this argument is a number of publications that makes up less than 1% of research on global warming (I think it's something like half of one percent).

Sorry bro, but that doesn't fly with me because the same crap happened with global cooling. During that time the skeptics were also in the minority.

Simply not true. The global cooling myth continues to be perpetuated by the same people trying to make the public skeptical of global warming.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environ...al-cooling
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2013 03:20 PM by dmacfour.)
05-29-2013 03:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,867
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Is this why climate change skepticism exists?
(05-29-2013 03:03 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  
(05-29-2013 02:34 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  
(05-29-2013 02:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  
(05-29-2013 02:21 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  
(05-29-2013 02:19 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  No offense, but that's kind of what's happening here. Instead of acknowledging that a misinformation campaign is actually happening and has been admitted to by people involved, most of the replies jump to addressing other concerns.

And this violates rule 2. Another straw man. Your straw man feeds your ad hominem.

And the above is exactly what you did in the consensus thread when you told us what the author "ought" to have done.

That's not a damn strawman. It's on record as happening.

Your characterization of other's arguments is the straw man.

I'd like to add another commandment. Don't engage in debate unless you are well acquainted with deductive reasoning.

You're running in circles and haven't addressed the actual issue. A public relations campaign that involves misinformation and paying for specific results.

I was pointing out your habitual breaking of the commandments you posted in another thread. I feel no need to restate what others here have said. You're irrational conviction that paying for results doesn't exist in those that support AGW is naive at best. Such refusal makes it impossible to have a discussion with you about it.
05-29-2013 03:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dmacfour Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,813
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 67
I Root For: Idaho Vandals
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Is this why climate change skepticism exists?
(05-29-2013 03:21 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  
(05-29-2013 03:03 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  
(05-29-2013 02:34 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  
(05-29-2013 02:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  
(05-29-2013 02:21 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  And this violates rule 2. Another straw man. Your straw man feeds your ad hominem.

And the above is exactly what you did in the consensus thread when you told us what the author "ought" to have done.

That's not a damn strawman. It's on record as happening.

Your characterization of other's arguments is the straw man.

I'd like to add another commandment. Don't engage in debate unless you are well acquainted with deductive reasoning.

You're running in circles and haven't addressed the actual issue. A public relations campaign that involves misinformation and paying for specific results.

I was pointing out your habitual breaking of the commandments you posted in another thread. I feel no need to restate what others here have said. You're irrational conviction that paying for results doesn't exist in those that support AGW is naive at best. Such refusal makes it impossible to have a discussion with you about it.

Because you're talking about a global conspiracy that would involve tens of thousands of people who've worked independently (and in different countries) for over three decades. It's laughable, it's irrational, and it's offensive to those who conduct actual research in this country (I'm one of them).

Do some scientists do unethical things? Yes

Do they get caught? Yes

Do tens of thousands of scientists get away with it for decades? No
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2013 03:30 PM by dmacfour.)
05-29-2013 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,867
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Is this why climate change skepticism exists?
(05-29-2013 03:25 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Because you're talking about a global conspiracy is occurring that involves tens of thousands of people who've worked independently (and in different countries) for over three decades. It's laughable, it's irrational, and it's offensive to those who conduct actual research in this country.

Your belief that 10's of thousands of people believe global warming to be a danger to the earth that must be addressed is what's laughable.

Because you're an alarmist you see that scientists agreeing the earth is warming translates to it being something that must be dealt with now. Yes, many scientists believe the earth to be warming. Most data supports that. If it's an issue, if something must be done, how much of a factor is man to it is not something that is uniform across that same group. You and Al Gore would have us believe it is.

You continue to do here what you've done in multiple threads. Attacked people who are saying a catastrophe isn't looming or something like it by distorting their arguments to be denying the earth is warming at all or denying that man is contributing to it. You lump everyone who isn't an alarmist into one category of "denier." It's intellectually lazy and false on its face.

And you continue to ignore Owl's very salient point that if it really is such a catastrophe as you and others would have us believe why do they keep spending money to confirm it instead of looking for what it takes to fix it? If it's proven, why keep doing studies to prove it?

This is where deductive reasoning comes in.
05-29-2013 03:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity

Posts: 25,179
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Is this why climate change skepticism exists?
Plus the argument of the Copernicus and Galileo angle. OMG! Do you really have to go back centuries for an example? The communication and tools are a little different today... ya think! The first scientist that is published in a respectable science journal backing up the denialists. That person would be sitting on a lottery ticket. He would be up there with Darwin, Watson, and Crick. Household name.
05-29-2013 03:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity

Posts: 25,179
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Is this why climate change skepticism exists?
Yes, many scientists believe the earth to be warming. Most data supports that.



Torch doesn't believe this. Paul M doesn't believe this. Tom Coburn doesn't believe this. Inhoffe doesn't believe this. I'm going to do a quick google search on politicians who don't believe the Earth is warming to man's influence. Be back in a sec.
05-29-2013 03:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,844
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #53
RE: Is this why climate change skepticism exists?
(05-29-2013 03:38 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Yes, many scientists believe the earth to be warming. Most data supports that.

A typical off the mark claim by Mach.

Quote:Torch doesn't believe this.

A typical dishonest claim by Mach.

Quote: I'm going to do a quick google search on politicians who don't believe the Earth is warming to man's influence. Be back in a sec.

A typical red herring by Mach.
05-29-2013 03:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Offline
Knower of all known knowings
*

Posts: 10,084
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 406
I Root For: Master Yoda
Location: Jedi Temple
Post: #54
RE: Is this why climate change skepticism exists?
(05-29-2013 03:31 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  
(05-29-2013 03:25 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Because you're talking about a global conspiracy is occurring that involves tens of thousands of people who've worked independently (and in different countries) for over three decades. It's laughable, it's irrational, and it's offensive to those who conduct actual research in this country.

Your belief that 10's of thousands of people believe global warming to be a danger to the earth that must be addressed is what's laughable.

Because you're an alarmist you see that scientists agreeing the earth is warming translates to it being something that must be dealt with now. Yes, many scientists believe the earth to be warming. Most data supports that. If it's an issue, if something must be done, how much of a factor is man to it is not something that is uniform across that same group. You and Al Gore would have us believe it is.

You continue to do here what you've done in multiple threads. Attacked people who are saying a catastrophe isn't looming or something like it by distorting their arguments to be denying the earth is warming at all or denying that man is contributing to it. You lump everyone who isn't an alarmist into one category of "denier." It's intellectually lazy and false on its face.

And you continue to ignore Owl's very salient point that if it really is such a catastrophe as you and others would have us believe why do they keep spending money to confirm it instead of looking for what it takes to fix it? If it's proven, why keep doing studies to prove it?

This is where deductive reasoning comes in.


Ouch

You destroyed him with pure fact and unbiased logic.

Nicely done.
05-29-2013 03:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity

Posts: 25,179
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Is this why climate change skepticism exists?
Rep. Marsha Blackburn
“Also absent from the discussion in Copenhagen is the climate-gate scandal. Recently leaked e-mails reveal climate scientists have a long track record of manipulating data to hide scientific evidence that contradicts the global warming establishment. And why? To bully citizens and lawmakers into supporting job-killing energy tax schemes. This scandal raises serious questions about the Democrat’s climate control plans, questions that deserve a transparent investigation, not a rush to judgement by the bureaucrats in Copenhagen.”
Rep. Kevin Brady
“Climategate reveals a serious lack of integrity in the underlying data and models, such that it is doubtful that any process can be trusted until the data and models are validated and their integrity assured.”
Rep. Shelley Capito
Despite a widespread scientific consensus, the West Virginia Republican said she’s “not convinced” that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide are leading to global warming that will alter the planet’s climate in ways that could be dangerous.
Rep. Michael Conaway
Science is never settled…they changed the phraseology because the climate isn’t warming.
Rep. Randy Forbes
Elected officials need to depend on experts in the field to make determinations on the degree to which our planet is warming, and there is evidence among scientists and researchers pointing in both directions.
Rep. Cory Gardner
Representative Cory Gardner, a freshman Republican from Colorado and a skeptic of human-caused global warming… ““I think the climate is changing, but I don’t believe humans are causing that change to the extent that’s been in the news.”
Rep. Phil Gingrey
Filed petition with EPA claiming: “Climategate reveals a serious lack of integrity in the underlying data and models, such that it is doubtful that any process can be trusted until the data and models are validated and their integrity assured”
Rep. Gregg Harper
“I don’t believe that the science is at all settled on man-made global warming.”
Rep. Andy Harris
Harris said there is a recent warming trend, but “I don’t understand or know, or I don’t believe anybody really knows, how to place that in historic perspective.” He also said human contribution to climate change “is also a complex question,” and that even if humans are contributing, “can you change that contribution given that we burn a lot of carbon-based products to create the energy we need to run the economy of the world?”
Rep. Cynthia Lummis
“We’re just beginning to explore what mankind’s role is in climate change, so I’d argue that the jury’s still out.”
Rep. Tom McClintock
“We’re all told of course the debate is over and that all the scientists agree… and as all of you know, that is succinctly not the case.”
Rep. Mick Mulvaney
“Energy independence, green technology, and innovation is something we should pursue as a nation. However, we shouldn’t seek to accomplish that by taxing people based on questionable science. Neither should we ignore domestic energy resources – coal, natural gas, oil – because of baseless claims regarding global warming.”
Rep. Randy Neugebauer
“What we have here is a case of formulating scientific findings that back up policy, instead of creating policy that is backed up by legitimate science. Proponents of man-made global warming in Congress will use every opportunity they have to invite witnesses to testify before Congress who only share their point of view. We now have clear evidence of what we knew all along, that there are perhaps thousands of scientists who don’t share these views, and sadly have been the subject of concerted efforts to discourage and suppress their findings from publication.”
Rep. Pete Olson
“The emails that emerge from the University of East Anglia call into question the accuracy of the IPCC data.”
Rep. Phil Roe
“Many believe greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to the gradual warming of our planet and changing of our climate. While there are many questions surrounding the science of the issue, it seems to me like we could develop a solution that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions without inflicting catastrophic damage on our economy.”
Rep. Todd Rokita
“The link between manmade carbon emissions and measureable harm to the environment is a topic currently under debate. While there may exist a link, the current debate continues.”
Rep. Paul Ryan
Unilateral economic restraint in the name of fighting global warming has been a tough sell in our communities, where much of the state is buried under snow.
Rep. Lamar Smith
“I believe climate change is due to a combination of factors, including natural cycles, sun spots and human activity. But scientists still don’t know for certain how much each of these factors contributes to the overall climate change that the Earth is experiencing,”
Rep. Chris Stewart
“The science regarding climate change is anything but settled. “
Rep. Lee Terry
“There’s an argument here on the true impact of man… Is it really 97 to 3? I don’t think so.”
Rep. Todd Young
“The science is not settled.”
Sen. Kelly Ayotte
Asked if she believed in climate change, she said, “there is scientific evidence that demonstrates there is some impact from human activities. However I don’t think the evidence is conclusive.”
Sen. John Boozman
“Well I think that we’ve got perhaps climate change going on. The question is what’s causing it. Is man causing it, or, you know, is this a cycle that happens throughout the years, throughout the ages. And you can look back some of the previous times when there was no industrialization, you had these different ages, ice ages, and things warming and things. That’s the question.”
Sen. Thomas Coburn
“I’ve read the basic scientific studies, and a lot of it doesn’t add up for me,”
Sen. Ted Cruz
“There remains considerable uncertainty about the effect of the many factors that influence climate: the sun, the oceans, clouds, the behavior of water vapor (the main greenhouse gas), volcanic activity, and human activity. Nonetheless, climate-change proponents based their models on assumptions about those factors, and now we know that many of those assumptions were wrong.”
Sen. Deb Fischer
Asked about man-made climate change, Fischer immediately said, ‘I certainly don’t support cap-and-trade.’ She said she believes in weather change, but she said she does not believe man has a huge impact on the climate.
Sen. Chuck Grassley
“But the scientific aspect that I still reserving judgment on is the extent to which it’s manmade or natural. And it’s reasonable, considering that there’s at least a natural factor in it, because historically, and you can go to the core drillings in the glaciers to get proof of this, that we’ve had decades and decades, and maybe even centuries of periods of time when there’s been a tremendous rise in temperature, and then a tremendous fall in temperature. And all you’ve got to do is look at the little ice age of the mid-last millennia as an example. And so we’ve got to single out what’s natural and what’s manmade before you can make policy.”
Sen. Orrin Hatch
“There is also some disagreement among scientists as to whether global warming – regardless of its cause – would result in a net benefit or detriment to life on earth. Scientific studies demonstrate overwhelmingly that humans tend to fare better during warming spells than periods of cooling.”
Sen. John Hoeven
“Well, the science shows that there’s warming. There’s different opinions of exactly what’s causing it.”
Sen. John Isakson
“Science has shown us that there has been a gradual warming of the earth over the last 50 years. What is not as clear is whether the cause for this warming is man-made emissions, a cyclical warming of the planet, or a combination of both. Given the uncertainty in the science behind climate change, I believe that we should take proactive steps, both personally and as a nation, to reduce our emissions footprint.”
Sen. Mike Johanns
There is a significant debate as to what role man plays in warming of the climate.
Sen. Rob Portman
“When you analyze all the data, there is a warming trend according to science. But the jury is out on the degree of how much is manmade.”
Sen. Pat Roberts
“There’s no question there’s some global warming, but I’m not sure what it means. A lot of this is condescending elitism.”
Sen. Marco Rubio
The government can’t change the weather. I said that in the speech. We can pass a bunch of laws that will destroy our economy, but it isn’t going to change the weather. — “I don’t think there’s the scientific evidence to justify it,”
Sen. Pat Toomey
“My view is: I think the data is pretty clear. There has been an increase in the surface temperature of the planet over the course of the last 100 years or so. I think it’s clear that that has happened. The extent to which that has been caused by human activity I think is not as clear. I think that is still very much disputed and has been debated.”
05-29-2013 03:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
VA49er Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 32,590
Joined: Dec 2004
Reputation: 1417
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Is this why climate change skepticism exists?
(05-29-2013 03:38 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Yes, many scientists believe the earth to be warming. Most data supports that.

As it has many times in the past and will do many times in the future.
05-29-2013 03:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 41,243
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1310
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #57
RE: Is this why climate change skepticism exists?
DMAC, From NASA http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Feature...ature2.php

Quote:Hansen and Lacis tweaked the inputs to simulate the cumulative influence of all known human-made greenhouse gases except carbon dioxide (including CFCs, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone) to see if their net effect could even be felt on a global scale in the climate system. To their surprise, Hansen’s team found that the warming effect of all those gases added together is comparable to the warming effect of carbon dioxide alone.


First, I'd point out that they lack the data to produce results... therefore they have a theory to predict other temperatures to fill in the gaps. The basic premise being that if it is warmer in NY and warmer in Florida, that it is warmer in Atlanta as well. As flawed as this is as evidenced by the past few years of actual data where NY is warm and FL is cold, let's roll with it anyway. And oh yeah, most of the stations are in highly populated areas and not in the middle of the oceans that make up 3/4 of the earth... but again, let's go with it... If we weren't measuring things in fractions of degrees, this might not matter at all... but as I said, let's go with it.

Not including the scientific gymnastics necessary to produce claims of what the earth's temperature was much more than 100 years ago, The basic premise is that natural events like solar flares and volcanic eruptions come and go, but that human impact slowly increases... Of course, this ignores that you can't seem to divorce the two impacts... and instead merely measure the combination... you don't know if both are positive, or one positive and one negative... It seems to me that we had a reasonable number of volcanos erupt in the 80's leading to numerous movies about them and few recently... The report THEN says that the sum of all greenhouse gasses is about the same as of CO2 alone... meaning that a BREATHING POPULATION is as big a factor as ALL OTHER GREENHOUSE GASSES COMBINED! Add to that methane from one end of the animals we eat and CO2 from the OTHER end of animals that we eat and there is VERY little that can be done, unless you are suggesting some sort of earth-wide veganism and neutering of all animals, PLUS some sort of population control.

It seems to me that a theory that longer lives, healthier diets and higher birth rates (thus more CO2 emissions) and deforestation to house and feed those people are responsible for as much or more of our problem as fossil fuels... yet people like you only seem to focus on fuels, because "oil" is your favorite demon... even though it seems that that is a relatively small component... as combining it with Ozone and methane and CFC and NO2 only makes it EQUAL to CO2

So, what are you going to do if the answer is to cut the earth's population (and it's support systems) by 30%? How do you think people will react, even if that IS the conclusion? You think it will work? Of course not. So you fight the battle you THINK you can win.
05-29-2013 03:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
smn1256 Offline
I miss Tripster
*

Posts: 28,847
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 337
I Root For: Lower taxes
Location: North Mexico
Post: #58
RE: Is this why climate change skepticism exists?
(05-29-2013 03:38 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Yes, many scientists believe the earth to be warming. Most data supports that.

And most data supported global cooling in the 80's.
05-29-2013 03:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dmacfour Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,813
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 67
I Root For: Idaho Vandals
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Is this why climate change skepticism exists?
(05-29-2013 03:31 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  
(05-29-2013 03:25 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Because you're talking about a global conspiracy is occurring that involves tens of thousands of people who've worked independently (and in different countries) for over three decades. It's laughable, it's irrational, and it's offensive to those who conduct actual research in this country.

Your belief that 10's of thousands of people believe global warming to be a danger to the earth that must be addressed is what's laughable.

Because you're an alarmist you see that scientists agreeing the earth is warming translates to it being something that must be dealt with now. Yes, many scientists believe the earth to be warming. Most data supports that. If it's an issue, if something must be done, how much of a factor is man to it is not something that is uniform across that same group. You and Al Gore would have us believe it is.

You continue to do here what you've done in multiple threads. Attacked people who are saying a catastrophe isn't looming or something like it by distorting their arguments to be denying the earth is warming at all or denying that man is contributing to it. You lump everyone who isn't an alarmist into one category of "denier." It's intellectually lazy and false on its face.

And you continue to ignore Owl's very salient point that if it really is such a catastrophe as you and others would have us believe why do they keep spending money to confirm it instead of looking for what it takes to fix it? If it's proven, why keep doing studies to prove it?

This is where deductive reasoning comes in.

You can't be reasoned with. Neither can Owl. He claims that climate scientists continue to focus on whether AGW is happening or not, which is another uninformed claim. Most aren't. In fact, 66% aren't, and the number is growing. This was used as an argument against an AGW consensus (by a convenient twist of logic), but it's actually evidence that most climate scientists have moved on from 'proving' AGW.

Again, you're claim that tens of thousands of reputable scientists and hundreds of thousands of earth science majors are full of **** is offensive.
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2013 04:04 PM by dmacfour.)
05-29-2013 03:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,867
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #60
RE: Is this why climate change skepticism exists?
(05-29-2013 03:58 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  You can't be reasoned with. Neither can Owl. He claims that climate scientists continue to focus on whether AGW is happening or not, which is another uninformed claim.

Broke 1,4 and 7

Quote:Again, you're claim that tens of thousands of reputable scientists and hundreds of thousands of earth science majors are full of **** is offensive.

Broke number 2, again.

I think we can safely conclude you are absolutely incapable of engaging in rational debate.
05-29-2013 04:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread:


Copyright © 2002-2026 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2026 MyBB Group.