Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 10-24-2014, 06:10 PM
 
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,872,467 times
Reputation: 4559

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann View Post
First off, I am not the one to whom you addressed your question.

Second of all, you "claim" to use the "scientific method" in your decision making. Yet you are unwilling to use that knowledge that you claim in order to explain to us great unwashed how the "scientific method" is supportive of your case as opposed to ours. We are back to square one - we have to comply to your standards. Anything else is unacceptable to your side.

All you are looking for is more fodder to denigrate your opponents.

I, on the other hand, am truly curious how you concluded from the "scientific method" to accept the AGE agenda. Do you believe, based upon your understanding of the "scientific method" that your conclusions are the AGW is "settled" science? How does the "scientific method" support such a conclusion? What opposition research have you read and then discarded, and why? All the result of the "scientific method", of course.

You people need to be held accountable for your conclusions. You have been given a free pass for many years. Now that you are being challenged, time for your side to do more than call names and spout propaganda.
I'm trying to see if we can at least get on the same page and understand what the other person is saying or where they are coming from.

If you, or others, do not understand what the scientific method is, any discussions you have on studies is useless, as your are only expressing opinions as opposed to methodology or scientific criteria.

 
Old 10-24-2014, 07:52 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,495 posts, read 36,989,426 times
Reputation: 13965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleidd View Post
NASA and NOOA in the USA and and The MET Office in the UK have all said their has not been any increase in average global temperature, no global warming, for this century. Those agencies do point to a few warm months here and there during this century, but that is all. There has not been any global warming.
Citation needed here....I have already provided links that disprove what you say.....Your turn.
 
Old 10-24-2014, 10:58 PM
 
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,872,467 times
Reputation: 4559
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Citation needed here....I have already provided links that disprove what you say.....Your turn.
Deniers just deny. They won't back up their assertions, because they can't go beyond what denier websites and Ruch Limbaugh tell them. Talk about 'low information voters'!
 
Old 10-25-2014, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Where you aren't
1,245 posts, read 918,772 times
Reputation: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3 View Post
You really don't get it. Weather and climate are not the same thing. Climate change has NOTHING to do with seasonal variations and I have no idea where you came up with that one.

I notice you completely ignored my question, so I will try once again:
Regardless, you think climate science is junk science. Perhaps it would be a worthwhile discussion what you think the scientific method is, what is its strong points, and what its weak points are. At least we would be talking from the same page then, or at least, reading the same book.
Try answering the bolded.

So climate change has nothing to do with weather....hmm...Yet hurricanes, tornado, and such are weather, so climate change has nothing to do with any of that, even though the government websites mention "weather". EPA is instantly biased and has no objectivity.
Technically the EPA website definitions of it, seasonal variations could count as well. An extreme case of weather that doesn't often happen doesn't prove anything, it all depends on the jet stream patterns, or wind directions that can cause a tornado to form. This climate change, global warming myths/conspiracy theories are all in your head.

Oh and by the way, fall is here where I live, it is doing what it is suppose to be doing here. The climate is getting ready to change into winter.
 
Old 10-25-2014, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Where you aren't
1,245 posts, read 918,772 times
Reputation: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3 View Post
Deniers just deny. They won't back up their assertions, because they can't go beyond what denier websites and Ruch Limbaugh tell them. Talk about 'low information voters'!
Go back and search for other threads like this, there has been many credible links, and quotes from alarmists that have dissented. The problem is that every time a need global warming/climate change thread is made, you global warming/climate change conspiracy theorists conveniently forget what has been posted. Speaking of low information voters, the ones that actually believe the mainstream party line are the real "low information voters".
 
Old 10-25-2014, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Where you aren't
1,245 posts, read 918,772 times
Reputation: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Citation needed here....I have already provided links that disprove what you say.....Your turn.
Computer modeling isn't science! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...eneration.html
 
Old 10-25-2014, 10:34 AM
 
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,872,467 times
Reputation: 4559
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookb4youcross View Post
So climate change has nothing to do with weather....hmm...Yet hurricanes, tornado, and such are weather, so climate change has nothing to do with any of that, even though the government websites mention "weather". EPA is instantly biased and has no objectivity.
Technically the EPA website definitions of it, seasonal variations could count as well. An extreme case of weather that doesn't often happen doesn't prove anything, it all depends on the jet stream patterns, or wind directions that can cause a tornado to form. This climate change, global warming myths/conspiracy theories are all in your head.

Oh and by the way, fall is here where I live, it is doing what it is suppose to be doing here. The climate is getting ready to change into winter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lookb4youcross View Post
Go back and search for other threads like this, there has been many credible links, and quotes from alarmists that have dissented. The problem is that every time a need global warming/climate change thread is made, you global warming/climate change conspiracy theorists conveniently forget what has been posted. Speaking of low information voters, the ones that actually believe the mainstream party line are the real "low information voters".
You keep proving that you do not understand that weather nor seasonal variations are climate. Yet you keep trying to make points. Your ignorance (not an insult, but lack of knowledge) keeps showing through.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lookb4youcross View Post
And THIS is the reason I asked the question:

Perhaps it would be a worthwhile discussion what you think the scientific method is, what is its strong points, and what its weak points are.


You don't even understand what the previous poster asked for.... a citation. You apparently have no clue what that means as part of the scientific method, and instead, point to an opinion piece.

You truly need to become aware of what the vocabulary used means. You don't, there for your attempts at advancing or even participating in the conversation is nothing but cheering from the sidelines at a professional football game. Your interested in it, but have no ability to perform at the level required to be credible.

Do yourself a favor and at least get to understand the language. And try and answer the above bolded point on the scientific method. Any research you do on it will go a long way to you participating at a better level than just opinion.
 
Old 10-25-2014, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Where you aren't
1,245 posts, read 918,772 times
Reputation: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3 View Post
You keep proving that you do not understand that weather nor seasonal variations are climate. Yet you keep trying to make points. Your ignorance (not an insult, but lack of knowledge) keeps showing through.



And THIS is the reason I asked the question:

Perhaps it would be a worthwhile discussion what you think the scientific method is, what is its strong points, and what its weak points are.


You don't even understand what the previous poster asked for.... a citation. You apparently have no clue what that means as part of the scientific method, and instead, point to an opinion piece.

You truly need to become aware of what the vocabulary used means. You don't, there for your attempts at advancing or even participating in the conversation is nothing but cheering from the sidelines at a professional football game. Your interested in it, but have no ability to perform at the level required to be credible.

Do yourself a favor and at least get to understand the language. And try and answer the above bolded point on the scientific method. Any research you do on it will go a long way to you participating at a better level than just opinion.

Look, the places you get your info from are way too biased. I'd be ignorant to accept their claims up front. The real big issue is, what is their goal? A "Carbon tax that goes to where, the UN? Really, how am I ignorant, and a low information voter for wondering about those issues? As for football, I don't waste my time on foolishness like that.
As for certain UN IPCC officials, Ottmar Edenhofer has said it was not about climate, but massive looting ( think carbon tax ), however that story has vanished from the thegwpf.org website.
 
Old 10-25-2014, 01:11 PM
 
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,872,467 times
Reputation: 4559
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookb4youcross View Post
Look, the places you get your info from are way too biased. I'd be ignorant to accept their claims up front. The real big issue is, what is their goal? A "Carbon tax that goes to where, the UN? Really, how am I ignorant, and a low information voter for wondering about those issues? As for football, I don't waste my time on foolishness like that.
As for certain UN IPCC officials, Ottmar Edenhofer has said it was not about climate, but massive looting ( think carbon tax ), however that story has vanished from the thegwpf.org website.
Once again, you totally are avoiding answering the following:

Perhaps it would be a worthwhile discussion what you think the scientific method is, what is its strong points, and what its weak points are.


I have not pointed to any 'places'. I am asking what YOUR understanding of the scientific method is. There is no sense discussing the other issues if we can't even agree whether the road we are talking about is paved or gravel.
 
Old 10-25-2014, 02:38 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,075,936 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookb4youcross View Post
Computer modeling is used in most every hard science discipline. We've reached that stage where the vast data is beyond our human processing.

Thanks for the link to an opinion piece.
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.


Closed Thread


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

All times are GMT -6.

© 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