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.
So yet another thread that it was warm before in Greenland and a study on sun spots proves that the overwhelming evidence from scientists around the globe proves that their is no AGW. This is what passes as a serious debate.
Why would there be a debate IF 97% of all climate scientists agreed? That is unless actual science doesn't care about a consensus?
Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory. I hope some folks watch the video I posted several posts earlier (#17) then start questioning what they think they know and why they were spoon fed some of what they were taught.
So to hell with the environment. Why not end regulations that restrict the use of toxic chemicals? That will be next. Think about how we are poisoning our natural resources like drinking water and the very air we breathe. Maybe some people think we should start drilling in National Parks. Why not? I mean, we're already causing extensive damage to marine and plant life. Who needs wildlife and forests that don't have high rises? I guess a "robust economy" will make all of that seem insignificant to some while leaving a disgusting, uninhabitable world to future generations.
Strawman. No one is arguing for that. Wildlife preservation is a very different issue since there are good statistics about species dying out from loss of habitat or overhunting. Climate is a cooked-books issue where the alarmists have homed in on CO2, knowing that fluctuates with economic activity. If you want to regulate economic activity regulate CO2
Why would there be a debate IF 97% of all climate scientists agreed? That is unless actual science doesn't care about a consensus?
Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory. I hope some folks watch the video I posted several posts earlier (#17) then start questioning what they think they know and why they were spoon fed some of what they were taught.
The so-called "actual scientists" more or less bully their peers into submission.
"What is your actual evidence of anthropological global warming?"
Well, it's February 25 at 2:19 am and the heat isn't running. It is currently 64 F and the historical average is 24 F. Today it was over 70, about 20 degrees above average for a high. I'm in the mountains, there's no snow or ice, and the magnolia & dogwood trees are blossoming everywhere.
Now, you might reply "that's a stupid answer" but nobody can convince me this is normal.
If you want actual statistics, the average temperature across the Earth's surface last year was 58.69 degrees which is 1.69 degrees above average, a record breaking margin, according to NOAA.
I don't know what more proof climate change deniers want. There is a lot of "evidence" so apparently that isn't enough. I mean, let's see.
tens of thousands of scientists - yes, it is very real
Donald J. Trump - no, it's a hoax
"The tens of thousands of scientists who belong to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the Geological Society of America, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and, most notably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change all concur that AGW is in fact real."
"If you want actual statistics, the average temperature across the Earth's surface last year was 58.69 degrees which is 1.69 degrees above average, a record breaking margin, according to NOAA."
Sorry, a 1 year occurrence is NOT a trend.
"I don't know what more proof climate change deniers want. There is a lot of "evidence" so apparently that isn't enough. I mean, let's see."
MOST of the evidence is from 1 article (as stated on another post before this one.)
There is plenty of evidence to counter the idea also.
I don't think many believe that the earth CANNOT get warmer and cooler.
We DID have an "Ice" age and the "Melting" age.
Do you think man caused the ice age? And the "Melting" age.
The BIG question is, IS MAN CAUSING this "warming" trend?
MANY scientist are NOT in agreement on this question.
"If you want actual statistics, the average temperature across the Earth's surface last year was 58.69 degrees which is 1.69 degrees above average, a record breaking margin, according to NOAA."
The way those statistics are gathered is itself highly suspect. Is there a thermometer somewhere that calculates "world temperature"? Obviously not. So we're taking a composite of temperatures whose locations and accuracy vary. Wars shut down some of them. In the case of Russia the end of Communism cost us a lot of Siberian data. In Canada and Alaska the diminution in military activity cost us data. The ships that attempt the Northwest Passage don't make a reliable and trouble-free voyage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
Sorry, a 1 year occurrence is NOT a trend.
Correct. There are a variety of longer-term trends, plus of course mid-range trends such as the famous La Niña-El Niño cycle, the increasingly famous Pacific Decadal Oscillation, better known as "warm blob" and this winter "cool blob."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
"I don't know what more proof climate change deniers want. There is a lot of "evidence" so apparently that isn't enough. I mean, let's see."
MOST of the evidence is from 1 article (as stated on another post before this one.
Subsidies influence the outcome of many of the articles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
Do you think man caused the ice age? And the "Melting" age.
No question about it. </sarcasm>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
The BIG question is, IS MAN CAUSING this "warming" trend?
Of course. Al Gore and Barack Obama produce plenty of hot air.
No, they are NOT pikers and NO ONE has claimed so, so stop with the false accusations.
NASA is NO DIFFERENT then any other fed gov't agency at the top.
They will do and say ANYTHING to get MORE FED MONEY.
Do you know how the agencies get the money for their "programs"?
The will "create" programs just to get the money.
I worked for the fed in different agencies and they are all the same.
"show me the money"
Exactly, and this practice has seeped into the state-run science community. "Publish or perish" dictates that armageddonism is the only way to assure definite grant money for the next term. So armageddonism is what we get.
Climate scientists are basically welfare recipients, and when they see that the money is going to stop, they realize that it is time to pre-heat the oven, go into the scientific refrigerator and pull out the pyrex dishes with the leftover "facts", and cook up new forms of armageddonism and "right now" panic points.
This is what happens when Big Government creates Big Science. Which is another reason to get rid of Big Government and ignore Big Science.
I feel pretty good about Trump doing something like that over the next 8 years.
I've noticed that most of the people who believe in anthropological global warming know next to nothing about data. When you ask them why they believe in AGW they almost always just say "because 97% of scientists believe we are warming the planet". Putting aside that this 97% figure is a lie that traveled around the world (actually 2/3 of "scientists" of all kinds of different backgrounds have no opinion), saying "because scientists say so" is not data. It's a logical fallacy (fundamental attribution error).
Your logic is incorrect, the progression of conditions are not consistent. The correct logical sequence is this:
- America has institutions that specialize in solving difficult problems
- Difficult problems are too complex for an individual to solve, they require many people working on different parts of the problem
- America puts trust in these institutions (examples: NASA is entrusted with putting people in space and on the moon; NIH is entrusted with finding cures for diseases; the FBI is entrusted with fighting terrorism)
- Global Warming is a difficult problem
- America has institutions that study global warming.
- Therefore, America trusts those institutions and their results regarding global warming.
- Those institutions have overwhelmingly endorsed the conclusion that humans have affected the global climate.
If the fix for AGW costs, say, $1 per person per year in the USA, I guarantee you that there would not be a peep from any of the deniers. It would be a blip in the national dialog smaller than the blip of CFCs which at one time was a big stink and is no longer an issue.
But you cannot put a dollar value on the truth - it does not all of a sudden become untrue just because it is expensive. I would have a lot more respect for a politician who says "I believe in AGW - it exists, and humans are to blame. But it is too damn expensive to fix so we aren't going to do anything about it". Instead politicians (and some posters here) try to second-guess the scientists that we pay to study these problems and then when the scientists come up with an answer some people don't like, they attack the science. It makes no sense.
If you don't want to face the bill due, just man-up and admit it rather than attacking the very institutions you tasked with studying the thing.
The evidence for AGW is rather extensive, but I question whether the OP really wants to have an honest debate about this.
I could spend a lot of time digging up various articles, but I'll instead just leave a small smattering of links for you to read, if you'd like. If you are genuinely interested in learning more about the topic, there is plenty to read about.
I really like this site because it breaks out many contrarian and skeptic points, and addresses each one individually with citation-based information. Take a look and find some questions you have, you might find answers that interest you: https://www.skepticalscience.com
The demographic that rejects global warming is roughly the same as those who reject evolution.
All science they dont agree with is bogus science because they dont understand it and it conflicts with their basic ideology, whether that ideology is conservative Christianity or American capitalism, or quite often , both .
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.
