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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-02-2013, 06:17 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 49,547,847 times
Reputation: 24548

Advertisements

FWIW - The first living creatures were fortunately unaware, being anaerobic bacteria, of mathematical impossibilities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-02-2013, 09:31 AM
 
1,967 posts, read 1,525,654 times
Reputation: 844
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen View Post
And "elitist." Don't forget "elitist."

(Always wondered: When someone whines about the "elite," what, exactly, are they saying about themselves?)
Its hyperbole for "you're smarter than me so shut up."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2013, 02:11 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
18,946 posts, read 21,933,320 times
Reputation: 6537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason3000 View Post
Ok, who exactly denies Climate Change? I've literally never met a person you denies that Climate Change is occurring. I'm sure there's some moonbats out there (just as the Democrats are not all tightly wound), but the vast majority of people that you think "deny" Climate Change simply disagree with you on the % we account for. It's a much different argument and one I'd love to have! Humans account for .033% of Greenhouse Gases. That's the dirty secret the Progressive want to avoid. If it's so cut and dried....why continue this lie of "They deny Climate Change"? Why muzzle legitimate experts who disagree? Why would anyone have to create the science behind it? The real question should be "Since we know humans account for only .033% of carbon emissions, does any of this make sense?". Wouldn't be be better off spending all this time and money on adapting to the inevitable Climate Change that is already upon us?".

I prefer to focus on America being the leader in adaptation technology. That the US economy is the country to prosper from it instead of someone else. Just a different point of view. Diversity is good.
I think everyone on this board understands - or at least SHOULD understand - that when global warming is mentioned it generally refers to HUMAN caused global warming. I DO remember just a few years back when there WERE plenty of wingnuts on this board who denied that the worlds' climate was changing at all, but even most of THOSE people now admit that the worlds' climate is changing so that denial approach is no longer worth arguing, so they've modified their story by saying it's not "man made".

In regards to your ".033" number, I've seen other figures - but regardless of what the number is, small changes can make a lot of difference. Heck, the difference between ONE gene being turned on or off can make a difference between whether one has a desease or not.

In regards to your "scientific dissent" - there's nothing wrong with "scentific dissent", it's the multitude of ignorant people on this board and elsewhere arguing against it because "they read some article on the internet" and therefor think they actually understand the science that I have a problem with. Those scientists who argue against it should argue against it in the confines of the scientific community - with people who actually have the brains and knowledge to evaluate their arguments. Do you REALLY think folks on this board have the mathematical background and intellectual capacity to really understand the intricacies of one of the most complicated scientific issues scientist are struggling with? REALLY?

OF COURSE they don't - and the oil companies' scientific prostitutes who run anti-GW blogs and websites KNOW THAT - that's WHY they address THOSE FOLKS instead of the truly knowledgable people in the scientific community. As I said, it's the very same approach that the scientific prostitutes for the tobacco companies used. Those folks KNEW their arguments wouldn't stand up to scientific peer review so they simply through their arguments out to the general public - where ignorant folks with little better than a high school education just ate it up because it made them feel smart and educated when they were in fact neither.

A bunch of grossly ignorant people with little or no scientific background are spouting off about something they don't have a CLUE about.

The entire approach of the anti-GW scientific prostitutes is a "disinformation campaign" meant to sow confusion in the minds of the general public so that GW legislation is slowed down allowing the oil companies to continue to maximize their profits as long as possible - just as the tobacco companies did a couple of decades earlier.

The fact is, every major scientific body that has studied the issue and come to a conclusion as to whether or not man is affecting the climate has agreed that man IS affecting the climate - every single one (and this is a "who's who" list of world-class scientific organizations). The consensus is HUGE. Is it 100% among scientists? Of course not - almost nothing is, but it's pretty darned close.

Ken
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:

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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top