Proposition 23 - Stop Global Warming Silliness- Will it Pass? (Los Angeles: movies, dangerous)

[Ritchie_az]

So how was that ride in the delorian to the future where you just know for a fact that global warming is BS despite most scientist believing it's real.

This was from the first page of Google search:
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thousands of scientists sign petition against global warming | Tulsa Beacon
30,000 scientists against Al Gore + Global warming a scam
The Reference Frame: 31,072 American scientists against AGW
32,000 Leading Scientists Signed a Petition Against Global Warming? | Unreasonable Faith

I'm sure if I'd dug past page one I'd have more to post.

There are two points I'd like to make. First, "consensus" is not science, but theory (which could lead to science). There was once a consensus that the Earth was flat. In other words, sometimes consensus' (theory) turn out to be true and sometimes--often times, even--not. Second, the consensus is not as strong as some would like you to believe. There are tens of thousands of scientists--perhaps even hundreds of thousands globally--that do not agree with the global warming theory. And, after the global warming scandel in England (you know, where the leading global warming scientists were lying about key data, covering up flaws and refusing peer reviews), many scientists who were on the fence quickly backed away from the theory. So the consensus weakened quiet a bit. Now, with a new theory emerging (Global Cooling), I wonder how long the consensus will even last.

Just food for thought.

[jkbatca]

Originally Posted by Brenda-by-the-sea

Sounds like another case of someone who slept through ninth-grade science and never learned what the word "theory" means. A theory is an empirical model of rational inquiry that serves as a framework for experimentational confirmation.

Some common theories include: The Chromosome Theory of Inheritance, The Theory of the Internal Combustion Engine, The Germ Theory of Communicable Disease, The Theory of Relativity, and The Supply-and-Demand Theory of Economics.

"Theory" does not mean "unsubstantiated" or "unproved" -- except among the unschooled.

But this isn't really about rationalism. Your personal epistemology is emotionalism: you disbelieve things that make you angry and believe in things that are consistent with the world view you already hold. Such a belief system is often referred to as "Limbaughism" in honor of one of today's most visible exponents of emotion-based thinking, and denial by emotional fiat.

I have a few questions for you. Do you think the issue of AGW and climate models used to support it is "settled science"? Are we allowed to debate if the climate models are accurate or not? Or are the predictions 100 years from now fact and cannot be debated?

[kinesis]

I support AB32 and am voting No on 23. I support the furtherance of wind/solar/hydroelectric technologies.
I don't care about small businesses, there's too many of them out here anyways. We need to clean house on all these immigrants and people.
California should be like NY - You need to be rich to afford a business here. I don't want to see your gross polluting smoggy diesel trucks driven
by Jose the illegal. Smog up or get out. Theres other ways we haven't explored to fix this economic situation, 99% of it lies in the Federal Government's responsibility,
not a clean air law. Lobby from within, don't take our standards of clean air.

Who's more important? Jose the Illegal and his smoggy ass truck turnip delivery business, or the 500k clean energy industry jobs that have been created since 2005?

Come on people. Vote no on 23.

[Highnlite.]

A couple of years ago, I could say safely, that in the entire world only two groups of people denied man caused climate change. The Chinese Communists, and the American right wing whacko, strange bedfellows indeed. The Chicoms have come around, we are still waiting for the ARWW.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by Highnlite.

A couple of years ago, I could say safely, that in the entire world only two groups of people denied man caused climate change.

There's no doubt that man's activities have changed the climate to some degree. The disagreement is about whether or not man has changed the climate to a significant degree. Have we changed it so significantly that it's going to kill us all, or have we changed it only enough that some things will be more expensive or inconvenient in the future? That's what the disagreement is about.

[native56]

There is no doubt? I doubt it along with millions of others.

[Ritchie_az]

I support AB32 and am voting No on 23. I support the furtherance of wind/solar/hydroelectric technologies.
I don't care about small businesses, there's too many of them out here anyways. We need to clean house on all these immigrants and people.
California should be like NY - You need to be rich to afford a business here. I don't want to see your gross polluting smoggy diesel trucks driven
by Jose the illegal. Smog up or get out. Theres other ways we haven't explored to fix this economic situation, 99% of it lies in the Federal Government's responsibility,
not a clean air law. Lobby from within, don't take our standards of clean air.
Who's more important? Jose the Illegal and his smoggy ass truck turnip delivery business, or the 500k clean energy industry jobs that have been created since 2005?
Come on people. Vote no on 23.

Wow. Did you know that 19.6 million people in America work for businesses with less than 20 employees? That's just the ultra-small businesses.....

While I think Global Warming is mostly BS those links provided are from biased right wing blogs and that "survey" has been debunked as not reliable.

Like I said, that just came from page #1 of a quick Google search. And in fairness, at least one of those links was one of those "debunking" sites. But the point is, there are literally tens of thousands of scientists that disagree with the theory, which stands in contrast to "most scientists believe it's real." And, with the scandal with the leading global warming scientists in England--where they were bold-faced lying and being quite unscientific in their approach--more scientists have moved away from the theory.

[Highnlite.]

I for one would never argue with a man caused climate change denier or doubter, anyone who can ignore science that much, doubts or denies by faith alone, and one cannot argue with those who live on faith instead of facts.

It is like trying to tell a small child there is not Santa Claus, certainly not worth the time.

[jkbatca]

Originally Posted by Highnlite.

The Chicoms have come around

Could you post a specific link or so where they say they will do something about it? Funny, even if they say have come around, what they DO when it comes to building coal power plants, expand infrastructure, etc. is another thing.

[Ritchie_az]

A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming.

A shrinking majority of climatologists have theorized (not concluded, because there has been no conclusion) that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Only Al Gore declared the debate over. The scientific process has not declared the debate over, that is why they call it "theory" and not "fact" or even "science".

The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land.

Actually, nature contributes more than humans. In fact, about 25% comes from cows and other livestock alone.

The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2.

There are scientists who believe not only that carbon dioxide is good for the Earth, but that it is essential to the Earth. Also, you and I breathe out carbon dioxide all day long.

A small number of scientists

argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.

A growing minority (not small number, because it's hard to say "tens of thousands" is a small number) of scientists argue...
...well, you are not entirely correct with what you said. There is still a debate about whether the Earth has even warmed at all. Turns out the data was incomplete, corrupted and too narrowly sampled to make any real conclussions. In fact, the years that were supposedly the "warmest" were not (nor were they as warm as initially reported), and even NASA had to apologize. This goes back to that scandal in England where leading global warming scientists were not telling the truth (lying), covering up flaws in the theory, and refusing to allow peer reviews.
But, yeah, putting that aside, there are indeed thousands and thousands and thousands of scientists who disagree with the theory of global warming for different reasons.
The debate is far from over, and a "consensus" is not science.