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.
I wonder how hot the earth was back when the ice caps melted from the Gulf coast region back to the far Northern hemisphere ? I'll bet one of Trumps ancestors left a fire burning in his cave and caused the warming.
It is like people are incapable of understanding that there is more than one factor that can contribute to the fluctuations of the climate of an entire planet. Sometimes the simple answer you are seeking does not exist because it is not a simple problem. Biospheres can both change naturally from external causes and ALSO be changed by the organisms that inhabit them from the inside at the same time. And those internal and external pressures can even be pushing in opposite directions! Gasp!
The first mass extinction event on earth was the death of a large quantity of anaerobic micro organisms that produced oxygen as a waste product of their photosynthetic process. They hit a critical mass and changed the atmospheric distribution of the earth to have a much higher oxygen content which ironically caused them to die off. And that massive shift was caused by micro organisms with no intelligence and no industrial capacity.
I wonder how hot the earth was back when the ice caps melted from the Gulf coast region back to the far Northern hemisphere ? I'll bet one of Trumps ancestors left a fire burning in his cave and caused the warming.
If that's were we are heading life is going to be very miserable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogburn
It's cold in Wisconsin right now. How exactly do you and politically motivated people in the sciences (not objective, non-politically motivated people in the sciences) construe that as profoundly positive for the human population of Wisconsin and its farming crops?
Humans are basically a tropical species. Hence in part why a nuclear winter would be profoundly negative for the human population and not the hot a$& Amazon forest (which is one of if not the most bioproductive regions of all of planet earth).
The earth is in a mini-ice age. It's good for biological life and humans if the earth warms up.
So you think that climate warming although an unintended consequence is a good thing, what about the people in low lying areas around the globe that will be devastated by the sea rise and the melting of glaciers, increasingly violent storms and flooding. If you read through the original article you would see that India had it's highest recorded temperature of 127 degrees, I am sure they share your views relative to the positives.
I haven't seen anyone claim we are in a mini-ice age, if we are then we are in worse shape than I thought since the CO2 is warming our atmosphere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Obviously you have no interest in actually holding a discussion on why it was warmer in the past vs now.
The oceans have a huge influence on the weather. It's silly to suggest they don't.
We were talking about palm trees in Antarctica, presumably because you were making the case that it was warmer in the past. No one is denying that currents have an impact on climate but to claim that they were the reason that there are palm trees at the poles is unsubstantiated.
I noticed you still haven't answered my question, you don't believe the current science that CO2 is responsible, so what's your theory for the warming in the last century.
How would it benefit an organization like NASA to make up climate warming, do you think they do the same with the space program? The only reason people think it's political is because their findings don't agree with certain groups opinions.
I never claimed they were "making it up" what I said was that NASA is influenced by politics and the fact that their funding is predicated on there being a crisis to solve so they almost always come out with alarmist predictions.
I don't deny climate change and I don't think it's some conspiracy. What I am saying is that science is subject to politics, corruption, greed, arrogance, hubris and activism just like anything else.
That doesn't mean the science should be discounted or that we don't need to find cleaner energy.
What it does mean is we should stop pretending that this is blind, impartial science done with the scientific method as the first and foremost consideration. It is not.
I really get tired of the snarky, condescending elitism in these discussions where the discussion is framed as hard, impartial science versus "flat Earthers" and "science deniers".
I tend to think the liberal leaning folks in this discussion are the ones denying reality if they honestly think an organization like NASA or the IPCC is going to be impartial and conduct truly BLIND science, no matter what the outcome.
I get tired of hearing "peer review" tossed around which is basically the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy
because when people mention it they are trying to shut down the conversation.
Peer review is not infallible and not immune from corruption or bias.
I never claimed they were "making it up" what I said was that NASA is influenced by politics and the fact that their funding is predicated on there being a crisis to solve so they almost always come out with alarmist predictions.
I don't deny climate change and I don't think it's some conspiracy. What I am saying is that science is subject to politics, corruption, greed, arrogance, hubris and activism just like anything else.
That doesn't mean the science should be discounted or that we don't need to find cleaner energy.
What it does mean is we should stop pretending that this is blind, impartial science done with the scientific method as the first and foremost consideration. It is not.
I really get tired of the snarky, condescending elitism in these discussions where the discussion is framed as hard, impartial science versus "flat Earthers" and "science deniers".
I tend to think the liberal leaning folks in this discussion are the ones denying reality if they honestly think an organization like NASA or the IPCC is going to be impartial and conduct truly BLIND science, no matter what the outcome.
I get tired of hearing "peer review" tossed around which is basically the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy
because when people mention it they are trying to shut down the conversation.
Peer review is not infallible and not immune from corruption or bias.
Fair comments and I am sure there is a certain minor degree politics for any government organization, where we part ways is when people insinuate that NASA is playing politics in their studies. I would never state that anything is infallible but there is certainly a degree of overwhelming evidence from scientific organizations throughout the world. The fossil fuel industry has done everything they could to place a reasonable doubt in peoples minds by presenting false information, now that's politics in it's purest form not science.
I find it fascinating that people don't trust the leading world organization for space research on other planets can't predict what is occurring on their own planet, have we ever questioned the research of NASA and NOAA in the past. We know the fossil fuel industry has a large stake in the predictions but what exactly would NASA or any other organization have to gain.
Supposed to be 60 degrees tomorrow. We have smashed the worlds highest average temperature for the past three years in a row, each year breaking the previous. First time in recorded history. I guess 60 in January will translate into 110 in July.
But statistics, averages and science are all part of liberal plot to raise taxes.
We will see if Trump changes his mind that this is just a Chinese conspiracy. So far 16 of the 17 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000. This will likely come up with his EPA appointee.
You mean the people analyzing the data who's jobs and research money depend on the Climate Change agenda have determined that the Earth is warming right?
May as well set the record straight.
And BTW, zero evidence man has anything to do with the global temps. Zero.
We will see if Trump changes his mind that this is just a Chinese conspiracy. So far 16 of the 17 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000. This will likely come up with his EPA appointee.
Climate change/global warming issues interfere with the energy business. So climate change issues are out. They've been removed from whitehouse.gov, and are now mentioned only as "unnecessary plans."
Earth sets the record for hottest temperature? Au contraire, mofo. Venus and Mercury are both quite a bit hotter. You need to re-check the standings.
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.
