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.
Actually, I don't think you understand much of anything, particularly science, even when it is explained to you in terms even a child could comprehend...
Ah yes, if I didn't know my head from my arse on the topic, I would make a equal choice of response. Excellent choice in rebuttal sir, would you like some more wine with that cheese?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockside
This is why it's silly paying any attention to climate change hysterics.
From the Daily Caller -
"As the northeastern U.S. gets pummeled by Winter Storm Stella, it’s worth remembering The New York Times published an op-ed predicting the “end of snow” more than three years ago.
Peter Fox, the editor of Powder magazine, suggested “The End Of Snow?” in a February 2014 op-ed. Fox lamented the cancelation of two events at the winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia that year, and noted predictions that some cities would be too warm to even hold the winter games.
“[W]ith a rise in the average global temperature of more than 7 degrees Fahrenheit possible by 2100, there might not be that many snowy regions left in which to hold the Games,” Fox wrote for The NYT."
Climate activism is filled with very very stupid people who couldn't hack the hard science fields.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
A great many of the activists are, in fact, scientists. Are you?
And most of them are climatologists, who specialize in precisely the type of scientific work needed to penetrate the complex issues. Are you a climatologist?
And if you are going to be an activist who does not personally understand the science, would you rather be an activist who follows actual scientists, or an activists who ignores the actual scientists and proclaims the scientists wrong because they are saying things that your political ideologues don't want to hear?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
...blah blah appeal to authority, blah blah, elitist activist worship, blah blah...care to answer to the post?
I gave a clear and specific answer to your post. Do you want to say that scientists - including climatologists - are "stupid people who couldn't hack the hard science fields?"
Also, do you know what the phrase "appeal to authority" refers to? I did not in any way claim that scientists are correct about climate change because they are scientists. In fact, I did not even claim that they are correct about climate change. I simply pointed out that your claim is blatantly false. As a matter of sheer probabilities and good strategy, if someone wants to find "people who couldn't hack the hard science fields" then they are far more likely to find them by looking amongst the climate change deniers, where you will find very few scientists of any sort, and virtually no climatologists at all.
But of course there probably are some climate activists who don't understand the science. I'm granting you that. But I'd still like to hear your response to my question. What type of layperson do you think is following the wiser path: The one who accepts the views of the vast majority of actual scientists, or the one who rejects the views of most scientists and follows the lead of science-deniers? Ideally, everyone would understand science in depth but, realistically, most people won't. So it comes down to a question of who deserves more trust: scientists or right-wing opinion-piece writers.
Ah yes, if I didn't know my head from my arse on the topic, I would make a equal choice of response. Excellent choice in rebuttal sir, would you like some more wine with that cheese?
LOL....You can't even get that right....The saying is "Would you like more cheese with that wine"
Virtually all other countries — even longtime climate deniers and horrific polluters like China and India — have come to recognize the existential danger to their people, if not the planet, by man-made production of greenhouse gases. And they are putting in place programs to curb them, often at considerable cost to development. U.S. increasingly isolated on climate: David Andelman
This is why it's silly paying any attention to climate change hysterics.
From the Daily Caller -
"As the northeastern U.S. gets pummeled by Winter Storm Stella, it’s worth remembering The New York Times published an op-ed predicting the “end of snow” more than three years ago.
Peter Fox, the editor of Powder magazine, suggested “The End Of Snow?” in a February 2014 op-ed. Fox lamented the cancelation of two events at the winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia that year, and noted predictions that some cities would be too warm to even hold the winter games.
“[W]ith a rise in the average global temperature of more than 7 degrees Fahrenheit possible by 2100, there might not be that many snowy regions left in which to hold the Games,” Fox wrote for The NYT."
You are confusing the weather with the climate.
The weather is what's happening now and recently. The climate is the overall weather conditions of the planet.
The first changes every day and affects only regions. The second sometimes changes very slowly, and other times very rapidly, and affects the entire planet.
It was once thought that climate change always happened slowly, but beginning around 30 years ago, this belief was proven to be false. Some of the most drastic climate change happened very quickly in global terms. "Quickly" meaning massive change in a decade or less in its most drastic forms.
Weather records only go back as far as written language. Climate records are found in geology, where very ancient evidence to very current evidence is found in rock formations, soil samples, fossils, and other sources that indicate climate change.
The reasons why the climate changes are all well understood. When there's a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, the world heats up. When there is less CO2, the world cools down. Carbon Dioxide leaves its traces in the soil and sedimentary rock.
Once the climate changes drastically, there's always a large die-off of the prevalent species of the time.
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.
