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.
got 20 or 30 years of exposure to the literature covering all facets and actually conducting the research, or a few months of time on here and "climateaudit"?
And you do?
You don't argue the science with me, you argue with "maybes" and "what ifs". If you put as much skepticism that you do in denying conflicts with your position into your reading of climate research, you might actually be objective.
You don't argue the science with me, you argue with "maybes" and "what ifs". If you put as much skepticism that you do in denying conflicts with your position into your reading of climate research, you might actually be objective.
yeah. there's a thread's worth of dialogue to judge some of this on. let's try not to make it so pointedly and unfoundedly personal? let's try to learn from the information and more objective posts and links herein?
Global Warming keeps those who think its due to humans, employed. If you want to make them unemployed, they are going to fight you tooth and nail with "maybes" and "what ifs"... global warming is occurring but that point is not up to debate BUT what is up to debate is the reason, and I don't believe its due to CO2 or whatever else you want to come up with. If and when global warming is PROVEN that it is NOT due to human CO2 production, I am SURE the global warming conspiracists would make it to be something else... like human overpopulation or some bizarre stuff like that..
Global Warming keeps those who think its due to humans, employed. If you want to make them unemployed, they are going to fight you tooth and nail with "maybes" and "what ifs"... global warming is occurring but that point is not up to debate BUT what is up to debate is the reason, and I don't believe its due to CO2 or whatever else you want to come up with. If and when global warming is PROVEN that it is NOT due to human CO2 production, I am SURE the global warming conspiracists would make it to be something else... like human overpopulation or some bizarre stuff like that..
curious logic considering many planetary science and climate researchers could be employed in any number of other far more lucrative capacities, so have little financial incentive, for example, to do the work they do. and considering that they are often careful to attribute degrees of confidence in their assertions and conclusions ALL THE WAY from 0% to 100% certainty.
curious logic considering many planetary science and climate researchers could be employed in any number of other far more lucrative capacities, so have little financial incentive, for example, to do the work they do. and considering that they are often careful to attribute degrees of confidence in their assertions and conclusions ALL THE WAY from 0% to 100% certainty.
Ha! I doubt many of them could... there are millions who are employed to control CO2 emissions and study it... others are plain nuts about pro-environmentalist ideals they want to enforce on everyone else..
Ha! I doubt many of them could... there are millions who are employed to control CO2 emissions and study it... others are plain nuts about pro-environmentalist ideals they want to enforce on everyone else..
millions, eh? what would the incentive of a scientist at a university funded by the National Science Foundation to pay a relatively low salary be in "controlling CO2 emissions"?
Only one in a million is not exactly the best way to characterize everyone. Most of these people are NOT scientists at a university funded by the NSF.. and keeping on mentioning that several times is very misleading..
Only one in a million is not exactly the best way to characterize everyone. Most of these people are NOT scientists at a university funded by the NSF..
millions of what, then? most of what people? there are thousands of scientists studying things related to the debate that are funded by things like the NSF. NASA, for example. the EPA. the university itself.
yeah. there's a thread's worth of dialogue to judge some of this on. let's try not to make it so pointedly and unfoundedly personal? let's try to learn from the information and more objective posts and links herein?
First, you started with it being personal with your quip about qualification. Second, I have read most of the posts in this thread and you if you think what you have said points to "20 or 30 years of exposure to the literature covering all facets and actually conducting the research", then you are mistaken.
I remember your first introduction to the thread and it was nothing more than news reports, "what ifs", and a firm holding to the dao which is the IPCC. Here is the thing. While you may judge a persons position by their pieces of paper and how much they tell you they are qualified, I judge them by what they say, what they can prove and reason to be fact.
Hello, you have not defended your position. You spend more time talking about things in a vague sense than you ever do talking about the actual details of the issues. I bring up surface stations and the exact findings of their problems and you brush it off by claiming there is other evidence and even go as far as to suggest they are still correct, but I am just missing something that you somehow have a better understanding of?
Go back to our two topics of dicussions concerning Hansen and Mann. At the time, their findings were being contested. You supported them in the same manner that you do other things now with vague associations. They were both found WRONG (proven through "peer review" and issued rectractions), yet you in all your 20-30 years of "reading on the issue" were so sure they were correct.
So far it seems you have been wrong on several points in our discussion concerning this and have yet to even attempt to provide any valid data to support your claims concerning my objections. All I get is more excuses, not facts, but "claims" and attempts at trying to be condescending.
Seriously, according to our track record on this topics research, admitting that you have spent 20-30 years researching the topic doesn't bode very well when a little ole bumpkin like myself with a "few months of time on here and "climateaudit" has proven you wrong on two accounts. If I were you, I would pick up another hobby because you seem to do poorly in your reading of this one.
curious logic considering many planetary science and climate researchers could be employed in any number of other far more lucrative capacities, so have little financial incentive, for example, to do the work they do. and considering that they are often careful to attribute degrees of confidence in their assertions and conclusions ALL THE WAY from 0% to 100% certainty.
Would that be like Mann careful or Hansen careful?
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.
