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)
 
Old 04-08-2016, 08:44 PM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,384,541 times
Reputation: 4113

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13 View Post
I love when people use these things...

Now if we can just get the ole herring
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13 View Post
Hopefully the secondary market for co2 for agriculture and chemical production can lead to a less expensive extraction process.

Good post as always.
Looks like you got your 'ole herring' and added one of your own for good measure.

 
Old 04-08-2016, 08:48 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,536 posts, read 37,140,220 times
Reputation: 14000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
Hmmm. I am 68. I remember when the "global cooling myth" was the modern science of the day in the late '60s early '70s. It was on the news broadcasts and everything. what a conspiracy.
I think your memory must be going.....
 
Old 04-08-2016, 08:49 PM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,384,541 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman71 View Post
The statements are synonymous, if you please.

A consilience of evidence....

A consensus of scientists....

Trust me, I know exactly what it means. The fact that a "scientific consensus" is two lies for the price of one has damaged this particular statement to the point of making people like you have to find something else for you to state in forums like this. The absolute absurdity is is use of those two words together. Science does not work by consensus... never has, and never will. Anyone that has worked in the sciences knows this. Only politicians and idiots use these terms. Real scientists don't.

And I've never actually denied said evidence, now have I? Find even one of my posts that say such, I dare you. What I am skeptical about is the hyperbole behind said data's interpretations. Not once have I stated the climate isn't changing, or that man doesn't have a malevolent effect.

Why is it so hard to swallow that there just might be learned people of science (like me) that has issues with the hype and politics concerning a scientific topic?

It seems to me that those accusing "deniers" of using their religion to justify their stance are emulating those very people by crying blasphemy when someone doesn't accept their stance verbatim.

Hypocrisy at it finest.
Do you want to calmly and rationally discuss the consilience of evidence or do you just want to have an emotional ideological rant and attack strawmen?
 
Old 04-08-2016, 08:59 PM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,384,541 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobtHansen View Post
I remember when the consensus of science was the the earth revolved around the sun
It still is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobtHansen View Post
or that the earth was flat.
You must be very old. The ancient Greeks understood that the earth wasn't flat about two and half thousand years ago. Eratosthenes even estimated the earth's circumference around 240 BC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobtHansen View Post
These absolutely crazy global warming idiots are so frickin' clueless, it makes one's head spin.
Is it wise for people in glass houses to throw stones?
 
Old 04-08-2016, 09:26 PM
 
19,718 posts, read 10,124,301 times
Reputation: 13086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist View Post
Once again:

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus -Journal of the American Meteorological Society
I read your myth quote, but I was around when they were teaching global cooling. You can post the myth thing all you want, doesn't mean it is true.
 
Old 04-08-2016, 09:27 PM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 2,738,952 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist View Post
Looks like you got your 'ole herring' and added one of your own for good measure.
If you are going to quote me, use the picture. The humor is lost on your righteousness without the strawman
 
Old 04-08-2016, 09:30 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,271 posts, read 26,206,502 times
Reputation: 15641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
I read your myth quote, but I was around when they were teaching global cooling. You can post the myth thing all you want, doesn't mean it is true.
Which university taught global cooling?
 
Old 04-08-2016, 09:33 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,271 posts, read 26,206,502 times
Reputation: 15641
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
You're basing this on single email sent by one person that hasn't worked for Exxon for a long time.
It's more than just an email, they don't deny that they were aware of the consequencesven the Exxon CEO admits to global warming.
 
Old 04-08-2016, 09:36 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,271 posts, read 26,206,502 times
Reputation: 15641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist View Post
I think the point shown by the investigations so far was that Exxon wasn't ignoring the science at all. Internal documents show they were making their future business and risk management plans based on the science (eg drilling in the Arctic once all the sea-ice melts) while simultaneously being less than transparent with their stockholders and funding anti-science 'think-tanks' and groups to spread doubt about the science to the general public and governments in order to maintain their profit margins as long as they could.
"Hiding" would have been a better term, same business decisions that companies use when they produce a defective product all about the bottom line, GM ignition switch comes to mind.
 
Old 04-08-2016, 09:49 PM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,384,541 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
I read your myth quote, but I was around when they were teaching global cooling. You can post the myth thing all you want, doesn't mean it is true.
It wasn't a quote. It was a link to an article (which you clearly didn't read) in the AMS science journal that reviewed the published research and views of scientists in the 1970's. Just because there was a flurry of media articles about global cooling in the 1970s doesn't mean there was a scientific consensus amongst scientists (which is what the myth claims). The research shows that some scientists discussed the potential cooling from sulphate particulates in the atmosphere, whilst most were discussing potential global warming from greenhouse gases.

Look what happened in the media last year with hysterically inaccurate claims - 'scientists say a Mini Ice Age is coming!' - which was just media misrepresentation of one scientist's speculation at a conference of a possible period of a small reduction in solar insolation in the near future, similar to that of the Maunder Minimum period.

Last edited by Ceist; 04-08-2016 at 10:16 PM..
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.


Closed Thread


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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:43 AM.

© 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