U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 04-08-2013, 09:55 AM
 
13,056 posts, read 12,478,338 times
Reputation: 2613

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain View Post
That's your opinion only. Most of the world thinks he's a scientist. I wonder how he fooled all of them and only you have the truth. It must be a heavy burden to go through life with.

I applaud the man for his lawsuit. The government should be sued for failure to do its duty in this matter. He quit because a government employee cannot sue the government.

/sigh

He has been arrested numerous times for protesting.

He has had his work retracted due to his conclusions consistently siding with his activist belief.

He has been caught taking money from activist organizations of his bias that ranges in the millions.

He has consistently used his title and station at NASA to promote politics and make assumptive claims concerning the issue of his bias to which most recently was spurring investigations because he overstepped his bounds using his title (which is against the law).

He is an activist... nothing more.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 04-08-2013, 09:57 AM
 
13,056 posts, read 12,478,338 times
Reputation: 2613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan10 View Post
Why enforce AB 32 when new studies show no global warming?

NASA report

A new NASA report reveals, “NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that ‘greenhouse gases’ actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun.” This revelation debunks the greenhouse gas (GHG) theory about pesky carbon dioxide (CO2) trapping heat in the earth’s atmosphere, causing the planet to warm.

Why enforce AB 32 when new studies show no global warming?

Because they are right, even when they are wrong, and we should just follow their dogma because eventually they will be right. Their being wrong at the moment is only temporary, trust them... they will be right eventually! /boggle
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-08-2013, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Earth Wanderer, longing for the stars.
12,408 posts, read 18,204,377 times
Reputation: 8884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
/sigh

He has been arrested numerous times for protesting.

He has had his work retracted due to his conclusions consistently siding with his activist belief.

He has been caught taking money from activist organizations of his bias that ranges in the millions.

He has consistently used his title and station at NASA to promote politics and make assumptive claims concerning the issue of his bias to which most recently was spurring investigations because he overstepped his bounds using his title (which is against the law).

He is an activist... nothing more.
Of COURSE he's an activist. We are destroying the planet. Any sensible person WOULD be protesting that.
OF COURSE his conclusions side with his belief, because he is correct in his beliefs.
OF COURSE he needs funding from somewhere. He cannot go to mega corporation polluters for money, the way his opposition does, can he?
OF COURSE he sites his credentials and position as a support for his knowledge, would you believe him more if he were Joe Schmoe from Liberty College?

Boy, YOU sound like an activist. That's not an objectionable label.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-08-2013, 10:12 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
46,080 posts, read 49,833,364 times
Reputation: 15118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan10 View Post
Why enforce AB 32 when new studies show no global warming?

NASA report

A new NASA report reveals, “NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that ‘greenhouse gases’ actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun.” This revelation debunks the greenhouse gas (GHG) theory about pesky carbon dioxide (CO2) trapping heat in the earth’s atmosphere, causing the planet to warm.

Why enforce AB 32 when new studies show no global warming?
Or maybe your link has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect? How is it debunking anything? The link is about solar storms, which is insignificant compared to the earth's infrafred emission:

No one on Earth’s surface would have felt this impulse of heat. Mlynczak puts it into perspective: “Heat radiated by the solid body of the Earth is very large compared to the amount of heat being exchanged in the upper atmosphere. The daily average infrared radiation from the entire planet is 240 W/m2—enough to power NYC for 200,000 years.”

Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth's Upper Atmosphere - NASA Science

Or 100,000 times less.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-08-2013, 10:19 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,338,561 times
Reputation: 4167
Any influence by man on Global Warming, has no factual backing whatsoever.

In truth, climates frequently change.

Sometimes the climate gets warmer.

And sometimes it gets colder.

That's been going on for as long as the planet has been orbiting the Sun. Or, as long as it's had a climate, at least.

And man has never had the slightest influence on it.

Even the leftist loons who scream about how we have to use government to change everything, go back to the stone age, etc., to prevent some unknown catastrophe, have never been able to come up with even ONE study or example that backs up their claims.

What's funny is that, when they do name some study, it invariably turns out to be nothing but a bunch of long-winded claims which, finally, refer to some other "study" for proof. And what is in that other "study"? You guessed it - more long-winded claims, and eventually a reference to yet another study. And you can guess what is in that one, too.

The leftist global-whatever loons have been insisting on impending doom, and the urgent need to give government massive powers to change every bit of our lives to "avoid" that doom, for at least 40 years by my count. Literally billions of dollars have changed hands - usually into their hands - all over the world. And they still haven't come up with one shred of proof that man has had the least bit of influence on the climate changes that happen regularly around us. Nor is there any proof that man can do anything to change it.

***40 YEARS*** of screaming, caterwauling, and doomsaying. All without the slightest proof. Just references to references to references, ad infinitum. And demands that they be given complete power over all of us, to change what they cannot change.

Is this a record?

(Probably not. Leftist loons have been with us a LONG time. )
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-08-2013, 10:30 AM
 
3,846 posts, read 2,272,345 times
Reputation: 390
The lefty loons believe that evil is in the air.

Pretty much everyone else knows that lefties have been made delusional by the fluoridated water they always consume with relish.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-08-2013, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Earth Wanderer, longing for the stars.
12,408 posts, read 18,204,377 times
Reputation: 8884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Any influence by man on Global Warming, has no factual backing whatsoever.

In truth, climates frequently change.

Sometimes the climate gets warmer.

And sometimes it gets colder.

That's been going on for as long as the planet has been orbiting the Sun. Or, as long as it's had a climate, at least.

And man has never had the slightest influence on it.

Even the leftist loons who scream about how we have to use government to change everything, go back to the stone age, etc., to prevent some unknown catastrophe, have never been able to come up with even ONE study or example that backs up their claims.

What's funny is that, when they do name some study, it invariably turns out to be nothing but a bunch of long-winded claims which, finally, refer to some other "study" for proof. And what is in that other "study"? You guessed it - more long-winded claims, and eventually a reference to yet another study. And you can guess what is in that one, too.

The leftist global-whatever loons have been insisting on impending doom, and the urgent need to give government massive powers to change every bit of our lives to "avoid" that doom, for at least 40 years by my count. Literally billions of dollars have changed hands - usually into their hands - all over the world. And they still haven't come up with one shred of proof that man has had the least bit of influence on the climate changes that happen regularly around us. Nor is there any proof that man can do anything to change it.

***40 YEARS*** of screaming, caterwauling, and doomsaying. All without the slightest proof. Just references to references to references, ad infinitum. And demands that they be given complete power over all of us, to change what they cannot change.
Is this a record?

(Probably not. Leftist loons have been with us a LONG time. )
Do you REALLY think it furthers your argument or gleans respect if you use such language to tar people with who happen to think differently than you?

Certainly, our weather is changing, so much so that car manufacturers are being forced into making gas guzzlers redundant.

If your mind is closed you will find something wrong with every fact that disagrees with your personal feelings about climate.

Basics | Climate Change | US EPA
Climate Change: Causes
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

The US National Research Council and the Royal Society of the UK believe the above, as well, as well as numerous other national and international bodies. It seems as though the corporate drum beating to continue with business as usual happens most strongly in the US.

Read the Wikipedia article. The vast majority of scientists of various disciplines in the world have no argument that climate change is happening and that WE are significantly contributing to it.

In the face of all that expert opinion, I suppose the only retort left to you is name calling.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-08-2013, 11:38 AM
 
13,056 posts, read 12,478,338 times
Reputation: 2613
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain View Post
Of COURSE he's an activist. We are destroying the planet. Any sensible person WOULD be protesting that.
Science is not a promotion of bias. It is a process of exploration through objective means of testing. Him being an activist creates a conflict of interest due to his outspoken bias. A scientist is not an activist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain View Post
OF COURSE his conclusions side with his belief, because he is correct in his beliefs.
He is a scientist and a scientist is only correct in a given assumption when that assumption is properly verified, validated, and replicated. His conclusions are that of his bias because he advocates his bias over the process of science which contrary to the purpose of science. That in turn makes him NOT a scientist, but simply an activist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain View Post
OF COURSE he needs funding from somewhere. He cannot go to mega corporation polluters for money, the way his opposition does, can he?
I am not one to proclaim funding as the means to which decides a given researches conclusion, but... keep in mind the above points and there is... concern. Also, do you share this same opinion as it concerns the claims of oil companies funding research that is so often used to dismiss work that conflicts with the CAGW position? How can one be acceptable and the other not? Please explain.


Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain View Post
OF COURSE he sites his credentials and position as a support for his knowledge, would you believe him more if he were Joe Schmoe from Liberty College?
It is policy for government officials in NASA when speaking outside of their professional capacity to not use their title as "support" for a given cause. That is, you can't provide a political organization means to promote their activist cause. This is law.


Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain View Post
Boy, YOU sound like an activist. That's not an objectionable label.
Projection.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-08-2013, 01:46 PM
 
7,300 posts, read 6,400,150 times
Reputation: 2903
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain View Post
An interesting thing that I read, regarding sprawl, is now that cities are getting safer, seniors are preferring to retire there rather than in out of the way villages. They prefer that medical and entertainment and shopping facilities be close by.

It may be that safer cities will attract those in the burbs back again over time.

I take issue with population growth, too, but I guess that is an impossible topic for a lot of people.
Cities have more of everything. American Sprawl has very little available (except the proverbial Walmart nightmare, and the bazillion drive-through fast food restaurants). What there is available in American Sprawls, always has to be driven to, and that takes time. It requires a huge amount of gas, and car bills to live in American Sprawl, not to mention that it's a wasteland of previously nice land turned into an eyesore of culturally-void, boxy development, roads, and fertilizer-dependent grass.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-08-2013, 01:55 PM
 
Location: California
2,475 posts, read 1,978,682 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain View Post
Certainly, our weather is changing, so much so that car manufacturers are being forced into making gas guzzlers redundant.
That would be Democratic Party policy and regulation doing so.

Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 04-08-2013 at 02:29 PM..
Rate this post positively
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.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:32 PM.

© 2005-2022, 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