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.
Would those be part of the same group who trashed a 125 million dollar space craft because they forgot to compensate for the differences between imperial and metric measurement systems?
WAIT! That was a mistake so...
The New York Times and Al Gore have nothing to do with reality. One sells ads, the other mouths things put into those ads.
Would those be part of the same group who trashed a 125 million dollar space craft because they forgot to compensate for the differences between imperial and metric measurement systems?
WAIT! That was a mistake so...
The New York Times and Al Gore have nothing to do with reality. One sells ads, the other mouths things put into those ads.
Berating organizations, and people is not a credible argument. Besides, your claiming an organization that landed and drove on the moon, an ex vice President, and one of, if not the largest publication are all off their rockers?
Can you actually refute the scientific claim with real facts, or are we expected to accept a inuendo, and suposition?
Berating organizations, and people is not a credible argument. Besides, your claiming an organization that landed and drove on the moon, an ex vice President, and one of, if not the largest publication are all off their rockers?
Can you actually refute the scientific claim with real facts, or are we expected to accept a inuendo, and suposition?
The trashing of the 125 million dollar space craft is a fact or do you dispute it? Please, cite a reference that proves that did not happen.
Questioning credibility is a valid argument and there have been lives lost that prove the inability of NASA to listen to naysayers exists. Do we really need to go there because that goes all the way back to the 1960s do you want to dispute that too?
Being an ex-Vice President doesn't make Al Gore infallible except for those that worship him. Al Gore isn't responsible for the Internet, HTML or anything remotely close to it. Al Gore may have "helped" foster initiatives but he wasn't solely responsible for anything related to the Internet except getting lots of gullible people to believe whatever he says. Al Gore has done exactly what other than fly around in jets getting people to buy his books and pay to hear him lecture?
Apollo 1 is a fact or do you dispute it?
Columbia is a fact too.
So is Challenger.
Dispute any of those facts? They prove that the agency pays little attention to anyone questioning what it does or how it does it and people paid for that with their lives. All of them died because of a systemic problem within that organization so before you hold them up to the shrine, think about it.
Global warming was changed to climate change. That is a fact. Now we have climate disruption.
Is the earth warming? Yes, and it has done it before and will go through an ice age again too. And?
The very same scientists that fabricated data get a pass because you happen to agree with their agenda. Convenient that when that comes up, the ends justify the means. The ends being how people can get bilked out of their money.
Scientists advising the President let Solyndra soak tax payers out of hundreds of millions. That is a fact too.
Isn't it amazing how wealthy Al Gore got talking about Global Warming or did he do all that for free and to help humankind?
When was the last time Al Gore did anything that didn't fill his pockets with money from those he persuades to believe his nonsense? Do tell.
As for one of the largest publications, please. They sell ad space and are on the track to becoming inconsequential except to the kool-aide drinkers. How many times did they fail to vet the stories they publish? Seems thay made some real jewels there.
We all live on the same ball of rock and are sustained by a very thin and fragile atmosphere,If the worlds scientific community is in agreement that we are f--king up the environment i'm more inclined to believe what the scientists say than the wild rantings of American rightwing media (re the hate Obama crowd) are claiming all the scientists are liars and scammers and are perpetrating some kind of grand hoax on the worlds population... //yeah right..
We all live on the same ball of rock and are sustained by a very thin and fragile atmosphere,If the worlds scientific community is in agreement that we are f--king up the environment i'm more inclined to believe what the scientists say than the wild rantings of American rightwing media (re the hate Obama crowd) are claiming all the scientists are liars and scammers and are perpetrating some kind of grand hoax on the worlds population... //yeah right..
^^^^ This.
Bill Nye, the science guy, continues to respond to these who believe that science is all a bunch of hooey. Usually, it's him trying to be logical and reasonable with interviewers who keep interrupting to crow about how they know better than all those elitist scientists.
Saw a bit the other night in which 3 climate change deniers were debating Bill Nye and 96 other scientists, representing the percentage split on climate change debate.
It's not easy convincing delusional folks about reality, particularly if their paychecks depend on it.
Last edited by GotHereQuickAsICould; 05-13-2014 at 06:05 AM..
Global warming was changed to climate change. That is a fact. Now we have climate disruption.
Is the earth warming? Yes, and it has done it before and will go through an ice age again too. And?
AND ignore the warnings at your peril. Depending on the section of the country you live in, you could be hit with massive storms, be up to your waist in rising water, or be drying up in drought and wildfires. And it will happen sooner than you think and sooner than the scientists predicted. At first they thought climate change would happen in the usual geologic time frame but now they are surprised at the speed at which the current change is happening and the height of the CO2 levels. What scientist predicted ice ages or warming or disruptions of the jet stream that would be so heavily evidenced in the span of a human life time! The only things that were supposed to have been able to cause rapid change were large volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes, or nuclear war.
Reminds me of the New Orleanians who were warned about the category 5 that was headed straight for them and decided not to evacuate- many drowned. Guess they thought it was government propaganda manufactured by people out to get money from them. Ironic that these people often end up being the ones praying to the Great Governmental god FEMA to come forward with a trailer.
When will man know what birds know?
- Carl Sandburg
The overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that global warming is occurring at an accelerated rate caused by hydrocarbon emissions into the atmosphere, and that anthropogenic activity is a significant contributing factor. What we know is that the polar icecaps are melting as evidenced by satellite imagery and decrease in mass verified by physical scientific measurements. We also know that climate change occurs naturally as evidenced by core samples of the earth's surface. However, what we are seeing now is abrupt climate change; which the evidence links to the growth of the earth’s human population and activities over the past 250 years; and, most dramatically, in the last half century. What we know is that there is only a thin layer of ozone that shields the earth from the sun’s rays; and that it is being depleted by industrial emissions into the atmosphere resulting in the rise of the ocean temperature that generates the earth’s climate conditions. Just a small change in ocean temperature will affect the thermohaline conveyor leading to more harsh winter weather, reduced soil moisture and more intense winds in regions that provide the significant portion of the world’s food production, and cause a dramatic decrease in the human carrying capacity of the earth’s environment. Even the Pentagon (hardly a bastion for environmental activism) acknowledges the fact of global warming and its threat to national security interests.
The global warming deniers have succeeding in politicizing the issue, and they are wrong for the true test of science is empirical evidence - not political correctness. The fact that there not complete consensus of opinion is inapposite. See Article: " The cold truth about climate change" by Joseph Romm, Salon (February 27, 2008 at The cold truth about climate change - Salon.com
As Dr. Romm put it: "What matters is scientific findings - data, not opinions."
Please argue the fact that CO2 concentrations since the 1800's are 40% higher than at anytime in the last 10,000 plus years as documented? Please prove these scientific results are cyclical?
We know that the oceans contain 60 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. We know that when the temperature of a liquid containing CO2 increases, the liquid releases CO2.
According to NASA, Swiss scientists and scientists in Finland, the sun's activity has increased over the last 100 years.
If we look at the correlation between warming and CO2, you see that they practically joined at the hip. You'll notice in the NOAA chart below that sometimes CO2 leads and sometimes it follows (CO2 is red and temperature is blue).
I know that I can see our climate and CO2 levels have varied greatly over the last 400,000 years.
I'm not sure why some believe it should have stopped for the convenience of man.
The trashing of the 125 million dollar space craft is a fact or do you dispute it? Please, cite a reference that proves that did not happen.
Questioning credibility is a valid argument and there have been lives lost that prove the inability of NASA to listen to naysayers exists. Do we really need to go there because that goes all the way back to the 1960s do you want to dispute that too?
Being an ex-Vice President doesn't make Al Gore infallible except for those that worship him. Al Gore isn't responsible for the Internet, HTML or anything remotely close to it. Al Gore may have "helped" foster initiatives but he wasn't solely responsible for anything related to the Internet except getting lots of gullible people to believe whatever he says. Al Gore has done exactly what other than fly around in jets getting people to buy his books and pay to hear him lecture?
Apollo 1 is a fact or do you dispute it?
Columbia is a fact too.
So is Challenger.
Dispute any of those facts? They prove that the agency pays little attention to anyone questioning what it does or how it does it and people paid for that with their lives. All of them died because of a systemic problem within that organization so before you hold them up to the shrine, think about it.
Global warming was changed to climate change. That is a fact. Now we have climate disruption.
Is the earth warming? Yes, and it has done it before and will go through an ice age again too. And?
The very same scientists that fabricated data get a pass because you happen to agree with their agenda. Convenient that when that comes up, the ends justify the means. The ends being how people can get bilked out of their money.
Scientists advising the President let Solyndra soak tax payers out of hundreds of millions. That is a fact too.
Isn't it amazing how wealthy Al Gore got talking about Global Warming or did he do all that for free and to help humankind?
When was the last time Al Gore did anything that didn't fill his pockets with money from those he persuades to believe his nonsense? Do tell.
As for one of the largest publications, please. They sell ad space and are on the track to becoming inconsequential except to the kool-aide drinkers. How many times did they fail to vet the stories they publish? Seems thay made some real jewels there.
Do tell.
Rocket science is hard therefore Earth isn't getting warmer. Hard to argue with that logic! If NASA can't put an human being on another celestial body in one try, how can we trust them to read a thermometer?
I love how in the minds of climate skeptics, somehow the climate change alarmists are the "big money" side, while I guess skepticism is some sort of grassroots effort that certainly isn't funded by billions of dollars from the energy industry. It's not the oil tycoons that are buying elections, it's all those climate scientists zipping around in Lambourghinis!
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.
//yeah right..
