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.
The "scientific community" is hardly in lock step when it comes to this. One big issue is how do you explain past temp swings when humans weren't emitting anything or, when the temps were doing the exact opposite and the "scientific community" were screaming we're heading into an ice age?
Lots of Chicken Little with not so much honest,concrete and verifiable scientific evidence and (so far) the only outcome is certain groups of people got immensely wealthy...
Actually not true, the vast majority of scientists agree, and those fluctuations have been explained. The only ones that think this hasn't been settled are the ones that keep hearing conservative right news bought off by those that want them to think this hasn't been settled yet
The "scientific community" is hardly in lock step when it comes to this. One big issue is how do you explain past temp swings when humans weren't emitting anything or, when the temps were doing the exact opposite and the "scientific community" were screaming we're heading into an ice age?
Lots of Chicken Little with not so much honest,concrete and verifiable scientific evidence and (so far) the only outcome is certain groups of people got immensely wealthy...
But, but they keep telling me "the debate is over", and I am a denier. Why are they so quick to not want to discuss alternative views, and opinions? Why can't they address all the data manipulation (using false temps), and wrong assumptions in their analysis, even by agencies my tax dollars fund like NOAA, and NASA?
But, but they keep telling me "the debate is over", and I am a denier. Why are they so quick to not want to discuss alternative views, and opinions? Why can't they address all the data manipulation (using false temps), and wrong assumptions in their analysis, even my agencies like NOAA, and NASA?
Because there's MONEY involved. LOTS AND LOTS of $$$$$$$$$ as good old Al Gore found out...
I'd respect the movement a little more if they put their money where their mouth is. Or didn't stand to make billions off their solutions. Meanwhile, poor people would be slammed with unaffordable utilities and make all the sacrifices, while they jetset around the world and have a carbon footprint larger than 30 families. Leonardo DiCaprio is the same way.
I understand what you are saying, but if coastal flooding gets worse, who do you think will suffer most? It won't be the rich.
The fact that the messenger is unattractive does not necessarily negate the truth of the message.
Here's the problem that some/many people have and that is every past prediction of coming doom and destruction has not come true so why should anyone listen now?
The other PROVEN thing is the earth goes through cycles, heat/cool/heat/cool etc so why is this any different?
They talk about glaciers receding but the earth that those glaciers are receding from was not covered by them at some point in the past or we wouldn't be finding fossils and such when they recede. How can you explain that?
Let me be clear about one thing, I DO NOT WANT DIRTY AIR/WATER. I would prefer we as a species would try to be as "earth friendly" as possible but not to the point of sacrificing humanity. There are greenies that would like nothing better than to see us back in the horse and buggy/candles for lights/log cabin or better yet cave dwellingdays (gotta save them trees and owls).
We could switch right now to LNG cars/trucks, we have the technology perfected and plenty of fuel but we don't.
Until we force it to happen it won't as there's too much money invested and to be made with oil.
What I am tired as hell of is those that constantly try to make the U.S. out to be the evil and worst offender in the pollution game.
You've sort of touched on something I wish more people would consider.
Even if climate changed turned out to be an absolute hoax, the fact remains that the activities believed to cause it pollute. If coastal flooding and other related issues are not enough to make people want to use more renewable energy, that alone should do it.
I haven't seen anyone suggest horse and buggy days, or anything like that. If you want to attack your opponents, please at least do so truthfully.
Last edited by Catgirl64; 08-09-2017 at 08:03 PM..
But, but they keep telling me "the debate is over", and I am a denier. Why are they so quick to not want to discuss alternative views, and opinions? Why can't they address all the data manipulation (using false temps), and wrong assumptions in their analysis, even by agencies my tax dollars fund like NOAA, and NASA?
The only data "manipulation" I've ever seen mentioned comes from deniers and sites that support them, like the Daily Mail....All false.
Climate skeptic reporter David Rose claimed he obtained evidence that the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rushed out a report with “manipulated global warming data” in order to convince world leaders to agree a deal to tackle climate change. Here are 7 reasons why his story is wrong: Factcheck: Mail on Sunday
You've sort of touched on something I wish more people would consider.
Even if climate changed turned out to be an absolute hoax, the fact remains that the activities believed to cause it pollute. If coastal flooding and other related issues are not enough to make people want to use more renewable energy, that alone should do it.
I haven't seen anyone suggest horse and buggy days, or anything like that. If you want to attack your opponents, please at least do so truthfully.
Please show where the ocean has risen to the point that people are fleeing? Please explain past climate cycles that were obviously not caused by any human pollution.
You haven't seen anyone HERE suggest horse/buggy but there were/are calls by some groups of greenies to get rid of cars,trucks,buses etc. so what would that leave us with?
I know how much you climate change deniers love to smear Al Gore, so I won't spoil your fun other to say that you are wrong....Gore is not a scientist, but a messenger conveying climate science to the public...
Yeah sort of like an arsonist advising you to be careful with matches around gasoline.
Oh I know, like an obese person giving advice on good nutrition.
or
People who are protected by private security condemning others for gun ownership.
Yeah Gore is the perfect messenger.
I will assume that those that deny the science of the 'greenhouse effect' (as it used to be called), which science pre-dates Mr. Gore by some 150 years or more, are also in denial, or consider as 'fake news', the news reports that there will be a total solar eclipse of the Sun this coming August 21st.
After all, it is merely 'scientists' that are predicting the eclipse, based on calculations that most people do not understand.
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.
