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.
Some of us conservatives like evolution and climate change..... until it gets really cold. then climate change will be bad.
You had no problem believing evolution but how is climate change different? They are both heavily funded by government and mandated to be taught in classrooms.
Waiting for one of y'all to explain to me the effect of climate when gigatons of greenhouse gases that have been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years is released annually?
We know a celestial impact can cause climate change, we know intense geological activity can cause climate change, but why can't our activities causes climate change?
1. No one lied. Anyone who cares about this topic can easily learn when we began keeping records. Is there an educated person who thinks cavemen had thermometers? Anyone who doesn't know this shouldn't have an opinion on it.
Look, you don't have to lie to be dishonest. Intentionally telling a half-truth is dishonesty. When you hear a politician speak, any politician, everything that comes out of their mouths are half-truths, careful omissions, misquotes, etc. The same thing goes for members of the media, as well as members of the scientific community.
Scientists are biased, and driven by self-interest, just like every other human-being. They aren't special.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
2. Scientists know, quite well, the temps have been warmer and colder. Again, not an argument anyone makes. The rate of change because of humans is what is of note. Also, the fact we have a whole civilization built up in its path.
I never said that humans are having zero effect on the environment. I merely said that their impact is obviously much less than what most "warmists" seem to think. What I've been saying for quite some time, is that it is better to wait until there is better proof that the negative effects are real and imminent. Rather than continue to make highly exaggerated predictions/claim, which never come anywhere close to reality.
If it actually became clear that global warming was a serious threat to this planet, humans could do something about it rather quickly. Yes, there is evidence that humans are making contributions to a slow warming trend, but the evidence does not predict any kind of doomsday scenario, nor is the warming unprecedented(nor can we freeze the climate in place, even if we had never burned any fossil fuels).
As I pointed out in my previous post. The global-warming issue has become entirely political. And honestly, there are effectively Marxists on one side, against conservatives on the other. And as the article pointed out, it isn't because one side of the other is more or less informed. Its because the way leftists want to solve global-warming, is through the expansion and centralization of power in a national or international body, and the redistribution of wealth.
Those are things the political right HATES, and will never accept unless the proof is overwhelming. That threshold simply has not been met.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
3. Yes, people who are better educated tend to be more liberal in all disciplines. No one cares the political affiliatiom of scientists. This has nothing to do with politics and they'd be terrible scientists if that influenced them.
Why shouldn't we care about the political affiliation of scientists? Do you know how the scientific process works? You make a hypothesis, and then you attempt to prove it. But, as the favorite saying in science goes "correlation does not imply causation". What happens in most cases in science, is that they don't always weed out all the possibilities of correlation(partly because its so difficult to control for every possibility).
In most cases, its difficult to control for every variable. And in some cases, not all of the variables are even known. In the case of global-warming, that seems to be the problem. They have created formulas which account for all the variables that they are aware of, and which hold true to what data that they have. But without knowledge of every variable, your formulas will never be accurate. It becomes at best an "educated-guess".
Now, when you have a political affiliation. What that means is, you are already biased towards a particular outcome. So you're hypothesis will be different from the start, and as you're trying to find a formula which can explain all your variables, you're going to start from the "worst-case" and work backwards until it fits.
While someone with an opposing political affiliation, will tend to start from the "best-case" and work forwards until it fits. This is why two different reputable and decent scientists can come to such wildly different conclusions. Their starting points are different, and not all the variables are even known.
So yes, if 97% of environmental scientists are democrats, it shouldn't be surprising if 97% tend to favor scientific conclusions which fit nicely within their overall political objectives(even though the 97% consensus is mostly a myth). Let-alone the fact that their reliance on government grants for their very livelihood, also plays a role.
I am not a fan of the burning of fossil fuels, and I never have been. I just can't stand the arrogance and dishonesty of many "warmists". If you've ever seen my posts here, I call people out, on all sides of every issue, when I think they are being dishonest.
I think most of us realize for instance, that Al Gore was dishonest, and was intentionally misleading, if not outright lying. He has become so hated, that he has basically gone into hiding. No one will defend that man.
Look, you don't have to lie to be dishonest. Intentionally telling a half-truth is dishonesty. When you hear a politician speak, any politician, everything that comes out of their mouths are half-truths, careful omissions, misquotes, etc. The same thing goes for members of the media, as well as members of the scientific community.
Scientists are biased, and driven by self-interest, just like every other human-being. They aren't special.
I never said that humans are having zero effect on the environment. I merely said that their impact is obviously much less than what most "warmists" seem to think. What I've been saying for quite some time, is that it is better to wait until there is better proof that the negative effects are real and imminent. Rather than continue to make highly exaggerated predictions/claim, which never come anywhere close to reality.
If it actually became clear that global warming was a serious threat to this planet, humans could do something about it rather quickly. Yes, there is evidence that humans are making contributions to a slow warming trend, but the evidence does not predict any kind of doomsday scenario, nor is the warming unprecedented(nor can we freeze the climate in place, even if we had never burned any fossil fuels).
As I pointed out in my previous post. The global-warming issue has become entirely political. And honestly, there are effectively Marxists on one side, against conservatives on the other. And as the article pointed out, it isn't because one side of the other is more or less informed. Its because the way leftists want to solve global-warming, is through the expansion and centralization of power in a national or international body, and the redistribution of wealth.
Those are things the political right HATES, and will never accept unless the proof is overwhelming. That threshold simply has not been met.
Why shouldn't we care about the political affiliation of scientists? Do you know how the scientific process works? You make a hypothesis, and then you attempt to prove it. But, as the favorite saying in science goes "correlation does not imply causation". What happens in most cases in science, is that they don't always weed out all the possibilities of correlation(partly because its so difficult to control for every possibility).
In most cases, its difficult to control for every variable. And in some cases, not all of the variables are even known. In the case of global-warming, that seems to be the problem. They have created formulas which account for all the variables that they are aware of, and which hold true to what data that they have. But without knowledge of every variable, your formulas will never be accurate. It becomes at best an "educated-guess".
Now, when you have a political affiliation. What that means is, you are already biased towards a particular outcome. So you're hypothesis will be different from the start, and as you're trying to find a formula which can explain all your variables, you're going to start from the "worst-case" and work backwards until it fits.
While someone with an opposing political affiliation, will tend to start from the "best-case" and work forwards until it fits. This is why two different reputable and decent scientists can come to such wildly different conclusions. Their starting points are different, and not all the variables are even known.
So yes, if 97% of environmental scientists are democrats, it shouldn't be surprising if 97% tend to favor scientific conclusions which fit nicely within their overall political objectives(even though the 97% consensus is mostly a myth). Let-alone the fact that their reliance on government grants for their very livelihood, also plays a role.
I am not a fan of the burning of fossil fuels, and I never have been. I just can't stand the arrogance and dishonesty of many "warmists". If you've ever seen my posts here, I call people out, on all sides of every issue, when I think they are being dishonest.
I think most of us realize for instance, that Al Gore was dishonest, and was intentionally misleading, if not outright lying. He has become so hated, that he has basically gone into hiding. No one will defend that man.
oh I don't know. because people on your side are militant brownshirts.
dishonest falsifiers of science.
and last week the scientists themselves have called for the American government to use RICO to persecute anyone who does not bow to their claims.
mad? not really. but I am appauled at your hubris. I am shocked at the willingness to lie so blatantly
I'm sorry scientific findings are so threatening to you. I just share the info.
Personal biases are worked out over time. That's what the scientific process does.
Don't worry. We have enough data over enough time to know humans are warming the Earth.
But the data is skewed and not reliable. There is no way that the data from the 1800s can be figured within a 10th of a degree or less with the equipment and methods available then and with things like ice cores and carbon dating.
You believe there's a little group of people hording a few data sets, and it's just not true. T.
This is true. They erased some of them.
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.
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.
