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.
Well, it's semantics but plate tectonics is the more accurate modern term because people did used to think continents were literally drifting.
No they didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
As ol' wiki says, "The idea of continental drift has been subsumed by the theory of plate tectonics, which explains how the continents move."
Wikipedia isn't a legitimate reference. It's written prevailingly by 4000 dilettantes and novices who have editorial dreams and often poor skills to match.
Wikipedia isn't a legitimate reference. It's written prevailingly by 4000 dilettantes and novices who have editorial dreams and often poor skills to match.
You just don't know how to source check Wiki....There are always references to the sources used....Nothing wrong with Wiki if you know how to use it.
You just don't know how to source check Wiki....There are always references to the sources used....Nothing wrong with Wiki if you know how to use it.
Only small commentators with little sense of self-worth, like you and Bluefly, are inclined to repeatedly condescend to other posters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
...There are always references to the sources used....
That's simply not true.
Superficial leftist thinkers who vote for personality cultists, hopeful dabblers who think planetary summers are abnormal, attempting to make a show of lecturing their debate opponents about bull**** detectors. What's next?
Only small commentators with little sense of self-worth, like you and Bluefly, are inclined to repeatedly condescend to other posters.
That's simply not true.
Superficial leftist thinkers who vote for personality cultists, hopeful dabblers who think planetary summers are abnormal, attempting to make a show of lecturing their debate opponents about bull**** detectors. What's next?
Personal biases are worked out over time. That's what the scientific process does.
What you don't realize, is that global-warming has become a kind of religion, and those who question it, are increasingly being silenced and threatened. As my previous post shows, many believe the government should actually arrest climate skeptics.
Obviously arresting people is a way to silence critics, but they attempt to silence critics/skeptics in other ways as well. This has been known for quite some time.
Why do they seek to silence critics? Because global-warming is big-business. A $22 billion a year business. If you don't think people will sell themselves for that kind of money, you don't know much about humans.
Yet, people like yourself will continue repeating the lie, because it suits your purposes.
Fundamentally the debate is not between whether humans are having any impact on the climate at all. The debate is about how much of an impact they are having, whether or not we should be concerned, and whether or not we should attempt to do anything about it.
Between 1910 and 1940, the Earth warmed at the same rate as it did between 1980 and 2000. Yet, scientists don't attribute the warming of 1910-1940 to humans, but do attribute the same warming between 1980-now to humans.
Furthermore, even if you were to accept the 97% consensus, obviously 3% didn't agree. Well, are they wrong? Have their papers been refuted? What caused them to come to different conclusions? Is science a democracy? Majority rules?
The idea that the science is settled, is downright absurd. If that was the case, then you would think the climate predictions, which have been preaching Armageddon for decades, would have panned out. They haven't, because the science is not settled, it is as simple as that.
If you said that increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the releasing of other GHG's such as methane, are having an effect on Earth's climate; I don't think many would disagree. But when you start getting into the realm of claiming humans are the primary cause, or even the entire cause of the change of Earth's climate over the last several decades, you are just flat-out wrong.
Furthermore, not only have the climate predictions been wrong, every other prediction has been wrong as well. They claimed more tornadoes, there have been fewer, they claimed more hurricanes, there have been none, they claimed more forest fires, nope. What have they gotten right? Ever?
Yet, they continue to boast and brag about how the science is settled. Give me a break. They are a bunch of liars and opportunists.
The whole thing is obnoxious. And people like yourself hide behind a bunch of biased researchers, who get billions from the government, and who actively attempt to silence their critics.
If you want to have an honest discussion about what should be done, I would love to. But your absurd claims **** me off.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 09-22-2015 at 03:01 AM..
What you don't realize, is that global-warming has become a kind of religion, and those who question it, are increasingly being silenced and threatened. As my previous post shows, many believe the government should actually arrest climate skeptics.
Obviously arresting people is a way to silence critics, but they attempt to silence critics/skeptics in other ways as well. This has been known for quite some time.
Why do they seek to silence critics? Because global-warming is big-business. A $22 billion a year business. If you don't think people will sell themselves for that kind of money, you don't know much about humans.
Yet, people like yourself will continue repeating the lie, because it suits your purposes.
Fundamentally the debate is not between whether humans are having any impact on the climate at all. The debate is about how much of an impact they are having, whether or not we should be concerned, and whether or not we should attempt to do anything about it.
Between 1910 and 1940, the Earth warmed at the same rate as it did between 1980 and 2000. Yet, scientists don't attribute the warming of 1910-1940 to humans, but do attribute the same warming between 1980-now to humans.
Furthermore, even if you were to accept the 97% consensus, obviously 3% didn't agree. Well, are they wrong? Have their papers been refuted? What caused them to come to different conclusions? Is science a democracy? Majority rules?
The idea that the science is settled, is downright absurd. If that was the case, then you would think the climate predictions, which have been preaching Armageddon for decades, would have panned out. They haven't, because the science is not settled, it is as simple as that.
If you said that increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the releasing of other GHG's such as methane, are having an effect on Earth's climate; I don't think many would disagree. But when you start getting into the realm of claiming humans are the primary cause, or even the entire cause of the change of Earth's climate over the last several decades, you are just flat-out wrong.
Furthermore, not only have the climate predictions been wrong, every other prediction has been wrong as well. They claimed more tornadoes, there have been fewer, they claimed more hurricanes, there have been none, they claimed more forest fires, nope. What have they gotten right? Ever?
Yet, they continue to boast and brag about how the science is settled. Give me a break. They are a bunch of liars and opportunists.
The whole thing is obnoxious. And people like yourself hide behind a bunch of biased researchers, who get billions from the government, and who actively attempt to silence their critics.
If you want to have an honest discussion about what should be done, I would love to. But your absurd claims **** me off.
Posting wildly inaccurate data is more fun and profitable than accurate data....Scientists like money and to keep accurate data for themselves and colleagues.
Wikipedia isn't a legitimate reference. It's written prevailingly by 4000 dilettantes and novices who have editorial dreams and often poor skills to match.
Why are you obsessed with this off-topic matter? Did you think you found a hole in my argument and aren't willing to give it up?
I wasn't citing wiki as a credible source; they just had a succinct quote that captured it. I didn't think anyone actually didn't know this so I didn't think it was necessary to dig deep.
"Continental drift describes one of the earliest ways geologists thought continents moved over time. Today, the theory of continental drift has been replaced by the science of plate tectonics.
The theory of continental drift is most associated with the scientist Alfred Wegener. In the early 20th century, Wegener published a paper explaining his theory that the continental landmasses were “drifting” across the Earth, sometimes plowing through oceans and into each other. He called this movement continental drift."
Let me know if I can explain anything else for you.
Haha. You're so cute. You political extremists have reached a dark point that agreeing with science is now government propaganda.
I'm sorry for sharing scientific understanding and threatening your myths. If new research emerges that shows another factor is warming our planet or our planet isn't warming, then I'll advocate that and you can call me an industry propagandist.
What you don't realize, is that global-warming has become a kind of religion, and those who question it, are increasingly being silenced and threatened. As my previous post shows, many believe the government should actually arrest climate skeptics.
Obviously arresting people is a way to silence critics, but they attempt to silence critics/skeptics in other ways as well. This has been known for quite some time.
Why do they seek to silence critics? Because global-warming is big-business. A $22 billion a year business. If you don't think people will sell themselves for that kind of money, you don't know much about humans.
Yet, people like yourself will continue repeating the lie, because it suits your purposes.
Fundamentally the debate is not between whether humans are having any impact on the climate at all. The debate is about how much of an impact they are having, whether or not we should be concerned, and whether or not we should attempt to do anything about it.
Between 1910 and 1940, the Earth warmed at the same rate as it did between 1980 and 2000. Yet, scientists don't attribute the warming of 1910-1940 to humans, but do attribute the same warming between 1980-now to humans.
Furthermore, even if you were to accept the 97% consensus, obviously 3% didn't agree. Well, are they wrong? Have their papers been refuted? What caused them to come to different conclusions? Is science a democracy? Majority rules?
The idea that the science is settled, is downright absurd. If that was the case, then you would think the climate predictions, which have been preaching Armageddon for decades, would have panned out. They haven't, because the science is not settled, it is as simple as that.
If you said that increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the releasing of other GHG's such as methane, are having an effect on Earth's climate; I don't think many would disagree. But when you start getting into the realm of claiming humans are the primary cause, or even the entire cause of the change of Earth's climate over the last several decades, you are just flat-out wrong.
Furthermore, not only have the climate predictions been wrong, every other prediction has been wrong as well. They claimed more tornadoes, there have been fewer, they claimed more hurricanes, there have been none, they claimed more forest fires, nope. What have they gotten right? Ever?
Yet, they continue to boast and brag about how the science is settled. Give me a break. They are a bunch of liars and opportunists.
The whole thing is obnoxious. And people like yourself hide behind a bunch of biased researchers, who get billions from the government, and who actively attempt to silence their critics.
If you want to have an honest discussion about what should be done, I would love to. But your absurd claims **** me off.
I don't have time to get into it now but do you have any idea how much warmer we are now than in 1940? It's not even close.
You're right about one thing - the debate is over how much influence humans are having and what should be done. A lot of folks on here think the debate is over whether or not humans are having an influence at all.
I'm actually not an advocate of government solving this. I think the market is best suited to solve it, but that's a different topic about politics and we're talking science here. Funny someone called me a government propagandist when I think the opposite.
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.
