Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-16-2015, 07:40 PM
 
1,108 posts, read 1,147,006 times
Reputation: 892

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post

I don't really see what "leftists" have gotten wrong. And none of these things are automatically leftist to begin with. Science is not political in and of itself.
Everything. Just take a stroll through the 'hood some day. Those 72% illegitimate children running around is exclusively on you and your leftist ilk. Be a man and accept responsibility for the urban holocaust you are responsible for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-16-2015, 07:43 PM
 
1,108 posts, read 1,147,006 times
Reputation: 892
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
Something like 98% of all actual scientists that deal with actual climate related fields are in agreement that the planet is warming, and largely because of human activity.
I was waiting for you to type that.

Sorry, chum. That was a lie:

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

"After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2015, 07:44 PM
 
16,345 posts, read 18,063,833 times
Reputation: 7879
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryMason614 View Post
It's not dogma for me. All I ask is one thing: PROVE IT.

They kept bleating "Ice Age" until it got warmer. Then the planet was going to burn up. Then after 15 years of cool, they came up with the laughable "global warming is storing the heat in the ocean." When that didn't fly, it became "climate change." Then you have forged hockey puck sticks ... destroyed data ... unaccountable professors ... fudged temperature data ... phony "97% of all scientists agree" ... AND I'M SUPPOSED TO BE A BELIEVER?

Never mind, again, that volcanoes and trees produce more CO2 than man does. Hey, that's an idea! Force them to put scrubbers on volcanoes .... LOL.

In the mean time, D-student Al Gore (who got kicked out of Harvard because he was dumber than George Bush) becomes the Joel Osteen of Global Warming and becomes a hundred millionaire and Goldman Sachs found Jesus when they figured out all the money to be made from carbon trading.

It's laughable because most people think this whole issue is completely ridiculous, yet it has taken on a life of its own.

Thank God common sense has started to prevail. Whatever the temperatures do, my exhaust pipe belching out a few puffs of smoke burning what God made naturally, organically, is not going to doom the world.
It's kind of a shame that you haven't educated yourself on this, but I've come to understand that science is basically the boogeyman for some people of a particular political persuasion. That's unfortunate, because as I said, science itself is not political. It doesn't seek to give us answers we want to hear or wish were true. For a lot of people, that's a scary thing. Religion is the opposite, it tells people exactly what they want to hear without the pesky requirement of any proof whatsoever. Science has it tough. Even when there is overwhelming evidence, people still won't take it seriously, but Jesus rose from the dead because a book says so. Humans...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2015, 07:50 PM
 
1,108 posts, read 1,147,006 times
Reputation: 892
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
It's kind of a shame that you haven't educated yourself on this, but I've come to understand that science is basically the boogeyman for some people of a particular political persuasion. That's unfortunate, because as I said, science itself is not political. It doesn't seek to give us answers we want to hear or wish were true. For a lot of people, that's a scary thing. Religion is the opposite, it tells people exactly what they want to hear without the pesky requirement of any proof whatsoever. Science has it tough. Even when there is overwhelming evidence, people still won't take it seriously, but Jesus rose from the dead because a book says so. Humans...
It's got nothing to do with science being a boogeyman. It has to do with JUNK SCIENCE being a boogeyman. Junk science used to justify all sorts of things that simply aren't true ...... just to rob the public of money. And that's all this SCAM of global warming is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2015, 07:53 PM
 
16,345 posts, read 18,063,833 times
Reputation: 7879
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryMason614 View Post
I was waiting for you to type that.

Sorry, chum. That was a lie:

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

"After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism."
Why are you posting an opinion piece by an obvious denier as evidence that it's not true? Further, this is classic self-fulfilling truth. You have a preconceived belief so you have sought to support it. That's pretty much the exact opposite way of how science works. That's how faith works. You don't have to believe most climate experts agree on warming. That doesn't make it false. That's kind of the beauty of science. It doesn't give a sh*t what you believe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2015, 08:00 PM
 
16,345 posts, read 18,063,833 times
Reputation: 7879
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryMason614 View Post
It's got nothing to do with science being a boogeyman. It has to do with JUNK SCIENCE being a boogeyman. Junk science used to justify all sorts of things that simply aren't true ...... just to rob the public of money. And that's all this SCAM of global warming is.
You haven't provided any evidence that it's "junk science" because you specifically lack any qualifications to make that determination. This is your belief, and let's be honest, you haven't actually done any real research into the topic. You've likely read a few denier papers or heard some pundit on tv call it a joke, if that, and called it a day. Your mind was likely made up even before that. National Geographic recently had a great piece on inherent bias that prevents people from accepting science that challenges their personal views, even if the science is established fact. Now, to be fair, this bias can exist in conservatives and liberals, but the topics of bias tend to be very different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2015, 08:07 PM
 
16,345 posts, read 18,063,833 times
Reputation: 7879
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryMason614 View Post
Everything. Just take a stroll through the 'hood some day. Those 72% illegitimate children running around is exclusively on you and your leftist ilk. Be a man and accept responsibility for the urban holocaust you are responsible for.
lolwut?

Out of sheer morbid curiosity, I'd love for you to explain this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2015, 08:17 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,438,435 times
Reputation: 7217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zen_master View Post
I'm always reluctant to wade into the waters of climate change debate for the same reasons I avoid debate of religion: It is dogma for both and no matter the evidence for either side it usually ends up in an ad hominem argument.


However, what I can say is that the most difficult aspect to accept re: global warming is that it seemingly lacks a basic tenet of the scientific method - falsifiability. That is, for something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it's false.
The article that you cite talks about global warming, then focuses on atmospheric temperatures only, with no consideration of the significant warming of the oceans. The article contains NO empirical data or analysis, and yet you give it great credibility. Why?

It's likely that a sustained solar minimum lasting for decades or longer likely could slow the impact of global warming, maybe even result in a cooling, but the cooling likely would be much less severe than during the last Maunder minimum. Scientists have admitted this, but it doesn't disprove that higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have warmed the planet.

As is typical, there is no mention of ocean acidification in that article. Why?

To equate scientific debates with religion and to rely on one biased and factually deficient article is very poor reasoning. Over a decade ago, I was a doubter about global warming, having long followed the career of Fred Singer. But as I began to see the massive global ice melts, the emergence of global acidification, as well as the historical correlations in the geological record between greenhouse gases and global temperatures, it was clear to me that climate change was a serious matter.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from under 320 parts per million before 1960 to about 400 ppm today, despite massive absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans. Do you believe there is no impact?

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

The greeders and "agnostics" such as yourself, somehow ignore what is happening to the environment. If you're truly familiar with the scientific method, what theory due you propose that explains the observed data, including ocean acidification and massive global ice melt, other than the impact of large measured increases in carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere?

Even if you ignore global warming, you should be petrified of ocean acidification. I haven't seen one science denier that wants to discuss this well-measured process.

BTW, the following empirical data totally contradicts your quoted article's statements about recent weather:

<<
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2015 was the highest for June in the 136-year period of record, at 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F), surpassing the previous record set just one year ago by 0.12°C (0.22°F). This was also the fourth highest monthly departure from average for any month on record. The two highest monthly departures from average occurred earlier this year in February and March, both at 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average for their respective months, while January 2007 had the third highest, at 0.89°C (1.60°F) above its monthly average.


June 2015 also marks the fourth month this year that has broken its monthly temperature record, along with February, March, and May. The other months of 2015 were not far behind: January was second warmest for its respective month and April was third warmest. These six warm months combined with the previous six months (four of which were also record warm) to make the period July 2014–June 2015 the warmest 12-month period in the 136-year period of record, surpassing the previous record set just last month (June 2014–May 2015). As shown in the table below, the 10 warmest 12-month periods have all been marked in the past 10 months.>>


https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201506


Those who believe bunk in the IBD and other outlets of the "Priests of Science Denial" over peer-reviewed scientific research and analysis, effectively belittling scientists and the scientific method, will deserve the consequences.


http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=165564&pt=2&p=15042

Last edited by WRnative; 08-16-2015 at 09:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2015, 08:42 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,438,435 times
Reputation: 7217
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryMason614 View Post
Never mind, again, that volcanoes and trees produce more CO2 than man does.
Forests are net carbon sinks, unless burned, which is happening with increased frequency due to deliberate human clearing of forests for agriculture and wildfires exacerbated by climate change.

Your claim about volcanoes is grossly inaccurate:

Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

Keep drinking the Kool Aid and tell your grandchildren that their once miraculous planet was destroyed by natural processes, which without explanation you'll mean included humans such as yourself. Keep this deceit in mind. If the greeds and science deniers win this argument, you'll need it.

What bothers me is that you have no comment about ocean acidification, let alone melting low-altitude glaciers and the ravages of the mountain pine beetle, which should be obvious to any American.

This suggests to me, along with your most recent grossly inaccurate comments, that you don't really believe your own baloney, or if you do, you are just, at best, very, very confused about the facts and the realities of climate change.

Last edited by WRnative; 08-16-2015 at 09:01 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2015, 08:51 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,438,435 times
Reputation: 7217
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryMason614 View Post
Everything. Just take a stroll through the 'hood some day. Those 72% illegitimate children running around is exclusively on you and your leftist ilk. Be a man and accept responsibility for the urban holocaust you are responsible for.
Why isn't it at least partially the fault of the social conservatives who limit birth control and ban abortions?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:10 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top