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.
I didn't literally mean no one has mentioned it. I meant that it hasn't been much of a campaign issue at all, and there have been no real discussions in the debates about it.
Because the climate will change regardless as it always has.
.... For example, you used the word "theory" rather than "hypothesis" in this post. ...
Look, I'm not trying to be insulting, but I simply do not believe that a person who holds these beliefs and misuses basic scientific concepts like this is a credible source -- particularly not one whose expertise is sufficient to question a vast majority of veritable experts in the field...
Yea! I'm not being insulted.
In my science (criminology), theories are the underlying reasons for events that scientists are trying to prove or falsify.
Hypotheses are the actual suppositions being tested in a specific study. They may falsify or fail to falsify a theory at the end of the study.
For a living, I applied my science (criminology) to fraudulent biomedical research, and I put more than the odd bad guy in prison for submitting fraudulent research to the government or cheating on a grant. So I have a very natural skepticism about the sources of data.
What you proffer as data of equal value simply wouldn't pass my smell test, nor would they pass the internal validity requirements of my agency. Sorry.
That you seek to generalize 350 years of hard data across 10 million years (or however many billions of years you want to plug in here - don't really care) is really problematic in terms of external validity. Sorry again.
These validity issues undermine your 'theory' (the reason for an event) of global warming, or climate change, or whatever we're calling it now. Sorry again - again.
So - all this scientific jargon aside, I'm happy simply saying that I'm not convinced about the climate argument, and I'm still not arrogant enough to believe the weather revolves around me. (Remember, I told you I was a qual, not a quant.)
But if you are, you are in fine company. Barak Obama could be your next-door neighbor.
Having a hard time believing a scientist would make this kind of dumb error. You are not even on the same planet let alone the ballpark.
My understanding is that this is as far back as we can date anything with respect to climate. That a rock existed before that is not really where I was going with this... but I'm not a geologist.
I'm currently reading a history of the State of Israel. They seem to fervently believe the earth has been here for only slightly more than 5,000 years.
So pick your date. I don't really have a preference.
"Climate change" isn't discussed much, but where I live, the war on coal which is the flip side of it is a MAJOR issue because our economy depends on the coal industry which the EPA wants to destroy. It's not just the miners' jobs, it the support jobs and the trickle down effects into the entire West Virginia state economy, include the coal severence taxes which go toward paying teachers and maintaining roads and highways, and the trickle down effects on local businesses too.
Liberals are also against natural gas despite saying natural gas is the reason for coal's decline. I used to live in Maryland where then-governor Martin O'Malley banned all natural gas drilling even though the western part of the state has rich natural gas reserves that would have greatly benefited local residents in terms of jobs and in royalties paid by the gas companies. For example you can make up to $20,000 to $30,000 a year from royalties if natural gas is found on your property.
I personaly believe global warming is a lie. Al Gore's predictions did not come true at all. Back to the Future predicted our times better than Gore did. And even IF global warming is real, Russia and China will not stop building coal power plants just because Hillary sets an example and puts so many Americans out of work.
Solar power has proven to be non-economical as seen by the failed start ups in Nevada and how even the sunniest state can't make it profitable. Coal and natural gas are the cheapest energy sources.
We have a saying here in West Virginia, if you don't like coal, then go sit in the dark!
Between 95 and 100% of scientists believe climate change is both real and man-made,....
Right out of the gate you have made false statement. If you are going to discuss the topic understand it first.
I know the next thing is you will cite a web page referencing a few studies including Doran, Cook, Anderegg, etc. What I will challenge you to do is read those studies, understand the criticisms and then go back to your statement and justify it.
Climate change+ Socialism+ redistibution of your money.
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.
