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.
Ok, you guys are absolutely right. Climate change is a farce. I am enthusiastically awaiting your published results disproving the entire scientific community. Boy, will you prove those idiots wrong.
No, actually what happened was that I expressed an unpopular or threatening OPINION and was almost instantly attacked for it. I never claimed to be an expert and I never claimed to be "better qualified than the entire scientific community" as you put it.
I said that I thought climate change was treated as a religion, that I was a skeptic and I listed my reasons why. The responses that I've received have all but come short of calling me "infidel" for daring to take a position contrary to the present dogma. Hence reinforcing my contention that this is treated like a religion!
Here's the difference between climate change science and religion.
Religionists have "faith" in an invisible man in the sky watching you masturbate.
Some of us have actually worked as researchers and actually know a thing or two about science. I don't claim to be a climatologist. I'm an engineer. And I know the discipline involved getting to where I am in my field. If 99% of doctors say my chances are high of catching the HIV virus if I have unprotected sex with an infected person, I will choose to believe the 99% of doctors versus the 1% snake oil charlatans.
And much in the same way, if 99% of climatologists agree on one thing, my bets are safe with that thing versus the remaining 1%.
You are also wrong about being persecuted, considering most of the population don't believe in climate change. You are actually with the majority on this one. Thank goodness we don't build skyscrapers based on designs voted by the majority of the general population.
Anyway, I think I've said what I wanted to say. You can have the last comment, I guess, until something new comes up.
Well, my post you quoted was a response to the so-called "climategate". This I am qualified to give an opinion because I worked for a number of years in scientific research and am well aware of the lingo that they use in the field. And as I pointed it out, people screamed "climategate" after seeing the emails because most people don't know scientific research lingo.
And as far as opinion goes, my opinion is and has always been I am not a climatologist but if 99% of climate scientists agree on one thing then I believe it.
Your opinion seems to be you are better qualified to make the judgment call than the entire scientific community. So, let me ask again. What are your qualifications? An expert googler?
It's not important that we all think alike; it's a difference of opinion that makes horse races.
Moreover and as a point of interest, even lay people have opinions and are qualified to render them. Furthermore, many capital murder trials have juries in which lay people comprise all or a majority of the jury. And amazingly, in many of such trials, they are able to hear experts who take the witness stand and detail out what they consider to be both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence as well as undergo rigorous cross-examinations.
Still more important is the fact that the burden of proof lies with those who claim a crime has been committed (prosecutors) and the standard of proof has a high bar that is well known as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" (as established by highly reliable and competent and material and relevant evidence).
Including all who post on this thread, I have yet to see anyone, anywhere, produce such evidence as regards alleged man-made global warming.
Until then, the case for man-made global warming remains but a hypothesis -- much like the case for Russell's teapot, the boogeyman and global cooling in the seventies.
Ok, you guys are absolutely right. Climate change is a farce. I am enthusiastically awaiting your published results disproving the entire scientific community. Boy, will you prove those idiots wrong.
You know, it isn't climate change that so many disagree with, it is the certain demonology of human being that gets rammed down everyone's throat that is the problem.
The earth has been around billions of years and now human beings, having been here for what amounts to be the blink of an eye, are the trash that is causing the majority of climate change?
You see, the route has been run before only then it was called global warming. That ran it's course because of the process loving people who ran their mouths to no end about it. Then it changed to climate change.
So far in my entire life, I have yet to see the climate remain the same, it has always changed. The fact is (and the entire scientific community agrees-whatever that is) the climate has and will change with or without humans on the planet.
Once in a while I gaze up at the known universe and see stars and sometimes close by planets. What strikes me is that there is climate change on all those planets and no human beings exist there. I also note that the moon which has no atmosphere to speak of has no climate change. I can only surmise that the fact that a planet has an atmosphere will have climate change while a moon or planet which has none will not.
Can human activity contribute to climate change? Sure, ever been in a room full of scientists? Notice how stale the air gets in there? No doubt in anyone's mind that climate can be affected by human activity, the issue isn't that, it is to what degree climate change is the result of human activity.
The most toxic air on this plant isn't the result of anything humans have done, it is created by nature. We as humans have yet to perfect even chemical weapons that can equal what nature itself does on a routine basis.
Now lets get right to the point of this whole thing. If as you claim the entire scientific community agrees with, that humans are the primary contributor to climate change and that in their own arrogance believe that managing human activity can also manage climate change, then why is it that there hasn't been to date, a single global wide conference on the matter where all the attendees attend via teleconferencing instead of flying there in jets, shopping for all those things that are produced as a result of high carbon emissions and so on?
I mean really, if the very people who are in the know and know more than everyone else can't see to manage their own contributions to climate change, what business do any of those complete idiots have telling anyone else to manage theirs?
You know, it isn't climate change that so many disagree with, it is the certain demonology of human being that gets rammed down everyone's throat that is the problem.
The earth has been around billions of years and now human beings, having been here for what amounts to be the blink of an eye, are the trash that is causing the majority of climate change?
You see, the route has been run before only then it was called global warming. That ran it's course because of the process loving people who ran their mouths to no end about it. Then it changed to climate change.
So far in my entire life, I have yet to see the climate remain the same, it has always changed. The fact is (and the entire scientific community agrees-whatever that is) the climate has and will change with or without humans on the planet.
Once in a while I gaze up at the known universe and see stars and sometimes close by planets. What strikes me is that there is climate change on all those planets and no human beings exist there. I also note that the moon which has no atmosphere to speak of has no climate change. I can only surmise that the fact that a planet has an atmosphere will have climate change while a moon or planet which has none will not.
Can human activity contribute to climate change? Sure, ever been in a room full of scientists? Notice how stale the air gets in there? No doubt in anyone's mind that climate can be affected by human activity, the issue isn't that, it is to what degree climate change is the result of human activity.
The most toxic air on this plant isn't the result of anything humans have done, it is created by nature. We as humans have yet to perfect even chemical weapons that can equal what nature itself does on a routine basis.
Now lets get right to the point of this whole thing. If as you claim the entire scientific community agrees with, that humans are the primary contributor to climate change and that in their own arrogance believe that managing human activity can also manage climate change, then why is it that there hasn't been to date, a single global wide conference on the matter where all the attendees attend via teleconferencing instead of flying there in jets, shopping for all those things that are produced as a result of high carbon emissions and so on?
I mean really, if the very people who are in the know and know more than everyone else can't see to manage their own contributions to climate change, what business do any of those complete idiots have telling anyone else to manage theirs?
Why is the "issue is what degree the climate has changed as a result of human activity" and the "demonology of the human being"? By being consumed with whose fault it is (of course the climate has changed without human involvement- no one would deny that!) and playing with semantics over terminology you are missing the big point.
The climate is changing much more rapidly than predicted and you will be affected along with everyone else. The melting of ice sheets that have been scientifically proven to be 1000 or more years old and the charts that show global temperature rising at a tremendous pace during this century have not been made up.
You can ignore all the "scientific idiots" you want and deny reality all you want- it really doesn't matter at this point.
Why is the "issue is what degree the climate has changed as a result of human activity" and the "demonology of the human being"? By being consumed with whose fault it is (of course the climate has changed without human involvement- no one would deny that!) and playing with semantics over terminology you are missing the big point.
The climate is changing much more rapidly than predicted and you will be affected along with everyone else. The melting of ice sheets that have been scientifically proven to be 1000 or more years old and the charts that show global temperature rising at a tremendous pace during this century have not been made up.
You can ignore all the "scientific idiots" you want and deny reality all you want- it really doesn't matter at this point.
Please cite what was the predicted and the actual global warming changes for the last fifteen years. Then identify how much is alleged to have been due to man-made activities.
Why is the "issue is what degree the climate has changed as a result of human activity" and the "demonology of the human being"? By being consumed with whose fault it is (of course the climate has changed without human involvement- no one would deny that!) and playing with semantics over terminology you are missing the big point.
The climate is changing much more rapidly than predicted and you will be affected along with everyone else. The melting of ice sheets that have been scientifically proven to be 1000 or more years old and the charts that show global temperature rising at a tremendous pace during this century have not been made up.
You can ignore all the "scientific idiots" you want and deny reality all you want- it really doesn't matter at this point.
A thousand years is nothing compared to billions of years now is it? It is nothing more than human arrogance to believe that studies of a hundred centuries somehow is definitive when it comes to explaining climate change.
As far as predictions are concerned, could it be the predictions were incorrect and the basis for making them flawed? If we are supposed to trust the scientists who make predictions that turn out to be wrong, then why should they be believed now? Don't you see a credibility problem when predictions are made and then found to be incorrect?
If I make a prediction that in the next year something will happen to a certain extent and the following year find it hasn't happened to the extent I predicted, can I now point to the problem I blamed and say "see? I told you so except that it is worse." Is that how it works?
I think you missed the point. If the very scientists declaring impending disaster can't contribute anything to the mitigation but instead contribute to the problem then just how credible can they be?
You avoided even getting to that question, probably because it illustrates the hypocritical nature of those claiming humans are the primary cause of climate change.
Semantics isn't the question. Why don't the very people who make the claims that humans are the primary cause of climate change flying around in jets, use vast a vast amount of energy, create large amounts of waste to attend conferences when other means to attend conferences exist?
It is a simple question yet no one can answer it. Does it not bother you that the very people you cite as authority and sources of knowledge engage in the do as I say not as I do lifestyle or do they get a pass because of some greater contribution?
I say that if those people had to do as they say, the blame game of climate change would collapse within a year until some other crisis was manufactured.
Is climate change a concern? Of course it is. That isn't the question. The question is "what is the primary or even secondary cause and can those causes be addressed in a way to lessen their impact so that that the effects of climate change are mitigated to the point that it makes a difference?"
If one goes outside and it is raining and digs a hole and puts a water hose in the hole and turns on the water, there will be people that claim it is the water from the hose that causes the hole to fill with water. The fact that is raining will escape them because one they can do something about and the other they cannot. They will never understand or even admit that another cause exists or in some way explain that the rain water can't possibly the the primary cause since the water from the hose has a greater volume than the rain water. They never think twice to look at the ground water filling the hole from the bottom up because it negates the position upon which they have founded their reputations.
Lets face it, climate change is more about reputation building than much of anything else. No one wants to follow the money that flows into and out of climate change initiatives. Who would dare?
Anyone can predict something and then later cite that prediction as turning out to be less than the reality and use that as a basis to impose things on others or build their reputations.
I predict that within the next 200 years, a significant earthquake will strike a large city and that a contributing factor will be the weight of all the buildings acting upon the faults. Therefore, we need to cease building in large cities and begin to vacate those cities. There is no way to prove me incorrect but I sure can wait around and when the earthquake hits stand up and say "see? I told you so" More to the point, I can say when the next minor earthquake hits "I told you it was on the way, everyone one in a large city will be touched by the earthquake if we don't stop building and get out of those cities."
I can then start a series of global conferences and I bet enough scientists would attend given the proper incentives to fund their various research efforts. Add to that, enterprising people who have the mindset of the Gores and others to draw attention and money and before you know it, an entire movement will get started.
Frankly at this point in time who cares if it's manmade or a natual occurance? It exists and having a pissing match about the cause delays us from doing anything to counteract it. There are things we can do but it takes collective will and in this country that just doesn't exist. Other industrial countries don't bash each other over the head assigning blame, they want to do something about it. We, as the world's remaining superpower should be leading the way but we're so polarized politically we can't get anything done.
There are things we can do but it takes collective will and in this country that just doesn't exist.
On the contrary, people in this country are doing plenty about it. Look at all the hybrid cars that didn't even exist 20 years ago. They are still more expensive than regular cars but wealthy folks buy them because they are "doing good". That's just one example.
The pro-Climate Change folks are actually winning but a lot of them seem to take pleasure in calling the anti-Climate Change folks nasty names. I mean, what do they care if people on an internet bulletin board think Climate Change is a religion when you have the full weight of the United States government, every university in the world, plus the United Nations and all multi-national corporations on your side?
Because liberals are allowed to attack conservative sources because it is unreliable partisanship, but conservatives are not allowed to attack Gore because that would be a political attack. Haven't you been paying attention?
BINGO! The problem, you see, is that Conservative people were (and, all-too-sadly, still are) attacking GORE and the other messengers, instead of actually taking the time to review the factual evidence. This is a time-worn strategy: "If you can't discredit the INFORMATION, FACTS, or DATA, seek to discredit the MESSENGER."
Go back through this entire thread. Observe that this is STILL the tactic-of-the-day.
The truly sad part is this: In the final analysis, all this brouhaha doesn't matter -- not one damn bit. Why? Because Mother Nature doesn't give a fig abut what any of us say or believe. The efforts of the "OPPOSITION" to discredit the messengers, or to weaken their message, won't stop -- or even slow -- the climatic changes that are occurring even as we read this.
"You see, if I close my eyes or hide them beneath the sheet, the monster can't get me!" Yeah, right. Tell that one to your grandchildren, because it is THEY who will be forced to deal with the Monster we have so far failed to acknowledge...
With all due respect,
-- Nighteyes
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.
