Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 08-31-2011, 03:26 AM
 
29,409 posts, read 21,935,334 times
Reputation: 5455

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by portyhead24 View Post
Oh you mean like how you just did now? Funny how people who have no clue on issues like global climate change can speak for days how it's all a big scam. Well, I'm no expert in climate change myself, that's why I listen to the experts and they overwhelmingly see that climate change is a reality that is happening. Go bury your head in the sand all you want. Only when we face the truth can we take steps to ameliorate the issues.
Your "experts" have been caught more than once falsifying data for their "research". That is a big problem with your "listen to the experts" mantra.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-31-2011, 03:30 AM
 
24,344 posts, read 26,761,691 times
Reputation: 19797
We all know God created Earth and life in 6 days. The universe wasn't explained, so that means they are just fancy lights at night. There wasn't any mention about weather patterns or any of that such, so please take your hocus pocus science and statistics elsewhere!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2011, 03:31 AM
 
29,409 posts, read 21,935,334 times
Reputation: 5455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
Good question! Naturally occurring events. Volcanic eruptions, largely. Noone said climate would not change regardless, but messing with things in a massive, uncontrolled experiment does not seem too smart.

Interestingly, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are now far LOWER than in all of earth's history. It has been dropping for the last 50 million years. So, earth will survive, but humans arose in the Pleistocene, and this is relatively toasty for us. Also, the current sea levels and shorelines are home to billions of humans. Massive sea level changes don't mean much for the earth, but they might for those civilizations around the world that depend upon the current arrangement.

I am pretty convinced that Atlantis, or something like it, was a massive civilization that began in the Pleistocene, off the NW coast of India, when sea levels were a few hundred feet lower than today. Archaeology suggests advanced civilization that predates the impressively old civilizations of the subcontinent. We tend to think civilization arose in the fertile crescent in the last 7,000 years, but perhaps the evidence of more ancient roots was buried by the last "global warming" at the end of the Ice Ages. My only point is that climate change can have pretty massive effects on humans, geopolitical arrangement, war, famine,etc., so perhaps worth thinking about....
I wonder if the folks who lived in Atlantis just stood there and watched the water rise and drowned or maybe moved to a better place?? It didn't happen overnight or in 50 or 100 years like some are howling about. You think the buildings in Miami and NY or wherever will last for another 100 years? I'd lay big odds they fall before any water takes em over. I just hope when they collapse or are taken down by demolition they don't discharge too much co2 in the process or the demolition team could be swept away by a tsunami from all that carbon tossed around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2011, 03:35 AM
 
24,344 posts, read 26,761,691 times
Reputation: 19797
No one is talking about the ice caps melting and causing massive world floods in 50-100 years...lol...

Maybe 5,000-10,000 years. People who believe in science know nothing major like that happens in 50-100 years yet alone 6 days (reference).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2011, 03:40 AM
 
29,409 posts, read 21,935,334 times
Reputation: 5455
I suggest your read through the thread started by the global warming club starter earlier today about the 50 year debacle ready to hit the US south.

This is the scare tactic the warmers employ then if that doesn't work just start calling folks who dont agree dumb or stupid. Bunch of 8yo's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2011, 04:17 AM
 
Location: Central Ohio
10,808 posts, read 14,876,654 times
Reputation: 16471
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
Thank the Lord Al Gores carbon exchange went up in flames. There were folks buying up rain forests and the like ready to sell off the "carbon credits" and make billions if it came to fruition.

Look at Europe and see the disaster's of going Green. Now to top it all off your a racist if you don't buy into the scam of all time.

"According to the Science & Public Policy Institute, the U.S. government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid and tax breaks."

Perry Vs. Gore - Investors.com
We need to get the terms correct.

Those aren't carbon credits Lord Al Gore is selling they're officially sanctioned "carbon indulgences" backed by the Church of the Environment Whacko's.

Basically you pay money to Al Gore so you can pollute.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2011, 06:40 AM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
20,054 posts, read 18,230,174 times
Reputation: 3826
Quote:
Originally Posted by crone View Post
IMO, if more folks understood probability and statistics, no one would purchase a lottery ticket or go to Vegas.
All one need do is stand next to a catalytic converter and multiply that heat by every car on earth, to know man is messing with Mother Nature.
If that's the standard scientists are using, I'm happy to report that even computer science is more "sciency" than the climatology theocracy.

I swear, the global warming scam alone is enough motivation for me to continue to infiltrate the corrupt academic arena.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2011, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,837 posts, read 21,927,834 times
Reputation: 13692
Quote:
Originally Posted by alleged return of serfdom View Post
Seriously dude. Go read the evidence and see for yourself.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says


The brightest minds on the planet agree. The evidence is overwhelming.


I dare you to read 3 peer reviewed papers linked from the site above.

Trust me, I used to make fun of AGW on this very forum years ago (under an old username).
When people like you, who buy into this man-made global warming crap have to call people racists, or are akin to Holocaust deniers, for not buying into it, then its obvious that you must resort to name calling, because you have nothing to stand on.

Go ahead and kill the cows and chickens, and fill in the swamps and marshes, because they are making greenhouse gases and creating a global crisis by warming the planet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2011, 08:45 AM
 
1,432 posts, read 1,088,189 times
Reputation: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by alleged return of serfdom View Post
Global Warming science is overwhelming. The theory is the highest level of science other than a law, and there are few laws (see thermodynamics).

Like other theories, including gravity, people will probably profit in a capitalistic society (see airplanes).

You would have to be either a) uneducated and unable to read or b) willfully ignorant not to accept the truth science offers when it comes to man-made global warming (AGW)
That is just not true...much of the so called science, is based upon models, and correlations. As someone who has a PhD, I think climate science is psuedo science at best. There is a cse to be made the earth is warming, but not a good case that is not simply related to cyclic changes or other contributing factors....

I build models and know their only as good as the inputs....one wrong input, not taking into account variability..poof, it is worthless.

Simple q - would I want to base the benefit of a new drug on models or correlation, know much stronger proof would be needed to distribute to the masses. How does one explain high levels of Carbon in the atmospher over 100's of yrs ago and no increase in temp?

If you are going to say things you have to have better proof than this...

Oh, and a consensus statement is not proof.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2011, 01:48 PM
 
553 posts, read 1,024,008 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
Your "experts" have been caught more than once falsifying data for their "research". That is a big problem with your "listen to the experts" mantra.
how do you know?are you a statistician?
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top