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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-26-2019, 07:38 PM
 
3,624 posts, read 1,067,941 times
Reputation: 2223

Advertisements

..and what they are really saying is that they don't know of anything else that could have caused it

Like they don't even know what clouds do.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-26-2019, 07:48 PM
 
2,627 posts, read 719,125 times
Reputation: 1665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
Greg Fishel, respected meteorologist, wrote a rant of Facebook criticizing people who question the science behind climate change, telling them to “put up or shut up.” He says climate deniers are self-appointed "experts" who just post junk on the internet and none of their stuff has ever been published in a peer reviewed atmospheric science or climate journal. He challenges them to do just that.

Read Fishel's post here: PUT UP OR SHUT UP

I agree. If climate deniers have a mechanism that explains how increased CO2 and methane don't heat the Earth, and supply a rigorous proof that Arrhenius was wrong, then let's see it. Get it published.
Climate will always change.....the hoax is blaming it on SUV's in Santa Monica.....deep pockets USA. The killer is "scientists" were caught years ago cooking the books to get grants. An extra celcius here and there adds up.....to HOAX
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 07:56 PM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
15,972 posts, read 13,691,336 times
Reputation: 4838
I feel global warming deniers would cease and become supporters should it ever be somehow discovered that lowering taxes and cutting back regulations would make it go away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 08:11 PM
 
Location: Raleigh NC
10,232 posts, read 7,635,941 times
Reputation: 8841
I don't know where the OP got this, but it wasn't today.

I'm in Raleigh NC, where Greg Fishel was a long-time popular meteorologist. For a while, he was a "this is natural, it's not that bad" and then became a "this is a big issue" - as seen in the attached, months-old post.

Greg was let go from the TV Station about 6 months ago for undisclosed personal reasons, definitely not for his climate opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 08:12 PM
 
Location: New York
1,701 posts, read 342,550 times
Reputation: 1275
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastwardBound View Post
Relying too heavily on 'experts' and not enough on intuition and emotion will only result in leaving you helpless, OP just as you felt on election night 2016. Science is heavily flawed because scientists are humans with self-interest like all people.

Which other science should we follow? Which way should we lean on Round-up? On eggs and butter? On GMOs?

I love when a post mixes common sense with facts and a little sarcasm! Good job

I would point all the chicken littles to this deep study by THE EARTH INSTITUTE at Columbia U (3 years and 1500 feet) which supports the fact that climate change is regulated by the sun!!! GO FIGURE! WHAT A SHOCKER!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/...round-the-sun/


The only thing which must be questioned is why after all that empirical evidence did he then have to throw a bone to the AGW crowd in the 3rd to the last sentence?

They only need that single sentence to ignore the 4 pages prior. It doesn't fit their meme so they will ignore science in the name of science. THAT fact has definitely been settled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 08:25 PM
 
64 posts, read 18,084 times
Reputation: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
Greg Fishel, respected meteorologist, wrote a rant of Facebook criticizing people who question the science behind climate change, telling them to “put up or shut up.” He says climate deniers are self-appointed "experts" who just post junk on the internet and none of their stuff has ever been published in a peer reviewed atmospheric science or climate journal. He challenges them to do just that.

Read Fishel's post here: PUT UP OR SHUT UP

I agree. If climate deniers have a mechanism that explains how increased CO2 and methane don't heat the Earth, and supply a rigorous proof that Arrhenius was wrong, then let's see it. Get it published.
I think we need to define what a "climate denier" is. I acknowledge that the Earth has a climate. I don't deny that. I know that climate, by it's very definition changes over the course of time, all by itself. Having said that I do not believe there is enough evidence to prove that human activity changes climate. In addition, I've been around long enough to see the great global cooling scare of the mid 70's. Then we were told the Earth is warming. But when the numbers didn't keep up with the established narrative, it became climate change. So we are right back where we started. In conclusion, the climate is going to change, always has, always will. I don't deny that.

So what then, is a "climate denier"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 08:34 PM
 
64 posts, read 18,084 times
Reputation: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
Ha! Sounds like he is describing some of the posters here who keep posting claims that are worse than freshman level physics; full of errors and just BS. The stuff they post is laughable it is so bad. But they always claim that because of their "discovery" AGW is a hoax. I agree with Fishel - publish it or shut up.

Really, the climate change debate is way past the debate on whether it is real and has moved on to what we do about it.
Climate changes. Has been changing since God created the Earth. That debate ended long ago. The debate is whether human activity has any significant role in it. I don't believe it does. And even if some substantial group of those who study climate determined that human activity does effect climate change, every proposal (Kyoto, etc) that has been brought forward as a solution, if followed through on, would make an almost undetectable difference in the Earth's temperature over a span of decades.

In the mean time, they have yet to develop a weather modeling system than can accurately predict how a local thunderstorm will develop over the next four hours.

Last edited by Casey73; 08-26-2019 at 08:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 08:35 PM
 
64 posts, read 18,084 times
Reputation: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originalist View Post
Nobody can teach common sense. I gave you a little of my time out of compassion. Have a great day, try not to worry about the world ending so much.
Short, sweet and to the point. Thank you for your observations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 08:44 PM
 
64 posts, read 18,084 times
Reputation: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58 View Post
Uh.... Mother Nature doesn't give a rats ass about your intuition and emotion. Next time the weatherman says a tornado or hurricane is heading for your neighborhood, will you take shelter, or will you rely on your "intuition and emotion"?

Scientists can absolutely be wrong. But if my choice is to believe a PhD educated atmospheric physicist with a record of published research, or some loser who spends all day in his basement on the internet, I think I'd put my money on the scientist.
I believe you've commited a huge mistake by assuming nature is a "mother". You cannot just randomly assign gender to nature. That is very incorrect on your part.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 09:50 PM
 
Location: Exeter, NH
5,321 posts, read 4,469,656 times
Reputation: 5744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
Greg Fishel, respected meteorologist, wrote a rant of Facebook criticizing people who question the science behind climate change, telling them to “put up or shut up.” He says climate deniers are self-appointed "experts" who just post junk on the internet and none of their stuff has ever been published in a peer reviewed atmospheric science or climate journal. He challenges them to do just that.

Read Fishel's post here: PUT UP OR SHUT UP I agree. If climate deniers have a mechanism that explains how increased CO2 and methane don't heat the Earth, and supply a rigorous proof that Arrhenius was wrong, then let's see it. Get it published.
You don't have to prove that something ISN'T happening: the burden of proof is on those making the claim. But here's a study that was accepted for publication by the online Journal of Geophysical Research, that re-focuses attention on a far more likely driver of climate change (sun spot activity) that is entering a cycle that results in COOLING. https://electroverse.net/chinese-sci...lobal-cooling/

Who is more likely to be objective: the U.S. and the U.N., who have been pushing this massive expansion of taxes and regulation with tactics anathema to science, or China - which cares about surviving and thriving in the future and doesn't need public support to impose new taxes/regulations? For intellectual rigor, I'd trust the Chinese scientists (considering how many Asian students we see in the hard sciences in our top universities).

FYI, the case against global warming is not made in peer-reviewed journals; it's made in logic. Do we have an unbiased world organization that has the data from a consistent and reliable framework of highly-accurate measuring stations around the world over a long enough time to make conclusions about long-term temperature trends? Is it likely that climate change is dependent only only one variable (CO2), let alone one so negligible that it constitutes less than one-half of one-tenth of one percent of the atmosphere? Would even drastic curtailing of U.S. emissions have a significant effect on world emissions, considering that China alone emits twice what the U.S. does, and the rest of the world also adds to the total. And finally, if global warming actually happened, would 2 degrees Celsius of warming and 4-8" of sea level rise by the year 2100 be so catastrophic, with longer (and better) growing seasons, less costs for heating during winter, etc.? https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/p...global-climate

Every scientifically literate person I know has long told me that the "climate change" push is PURE JUNK SCIENCE. I realized it myself after reading the Cook Study, and finding out that it was erroneously being used to claim that "97% of scientists believed in AGW" (https://www.econlib.org/archives/201..._97_agree.html). There is no "scientific consensus", despite tons of money being available for anyone wanting to work or publish in the "proving anthropomorphic climate change" field.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top