NickF1011 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Not if the opinion is based on facts. E.g. if the predictions were an increase in global temps and a 1 foot rise in sea level and there is data that suggests global temps have not risen in the last 10 years and sea level has also not risen by more than an inch or two, then anybody with a brain should understand that the initial premise must be questioned. So since water levels have only risen a third as much as they predicted, then the entire theory must be incorrect? Gotcha. I'm all for taking a longer look at it all, but to dismiss it as a conspiracy for scientists to make money is laughable. That's just not how peer review works in the scientific community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Interesting article. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/cause-of-the-pause-in-global-warming/ The absence of global warming for the past 17 years has been well documented. It has become known as “the pause.” and has been characterized as the “biggest mystery in climate science,” but, in fact, it really isn’t a mystery at all, it was predicted in 1999 on the basis of consistent, recurring patterns of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and global climate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Interesting article. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/cause-of-the-pause-in-global-warming/ And to MMCC/MMGW scientist, it's just voodoo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 UN Chief Global Warming Scientist Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming Uh, yeah, right. So if we take away peoples freedoms and liberties, we can fight the non-existent global warming problem. After all, the riff-raff and peasants should have no say in the government and its agendas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 (edited) UN Chief Global Warming Scientist Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming Uh, yeah, right. So if we take away peoples freedoms and liberties, we can fight the non-existent global warming problem. After all, the riff-raff and peasants should have no say in the government and its agendas. Yeah, she's taking a dumb stance, but so is your stance on climate change. However, Fired would tell you that democracy is not a good form of government as he's raved and ranted against popular vote here on more than a few pages and posts. I'm pretty sure others here have too. Edited January 20, 2014 by Langston Hughes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Yeah, she's taking a dumb stance, but so is your stance on climate change. However, Fired would tell you that democracy is not a good form of government as he's raved and ranted against popular vote here on more than a few pages and posts. I'm pretty sure others here have too. I think it's pretty dumb that you still believe even though 100% of the IPCC computer models they used has been shown to be totally inaccurate. You're ability to have such blind faith in that load of crap is truly astounding as well as sadly pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I think it's pretty dumb that you still believe even though 100% of the IPCC computer models they used has been shown to be totally inaccurate. You're ability to have such blind faith in that load of crap is truly astounding as well as sadly pathetic. It's not blind faith in the IPCC. I believe in human forcing but to what extent I am not sure. The only one with blind faith is you and the rest of the absolute deniers, which is even more pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 It's not blind faith in the IPCC. I believe in human forcing but to what extent I am not sure. The only one with blind faith is you and the rest of the absolute deniers, which is even more pathetic. I believe that the earth's climate is acting exactly as it should. How is that blind faith? It's not possible to deny something that is false. Nothing, I repeat NOTHING that has been predicted by the alleged "settled science" has come has been true. Yet you still deny the obvious. The sad and pathetic truth is you are the denier not me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I believe that the earth's climate is acting exactly as it should. How is that blind faith? It's not possible to deny something that is false. Nothing, I repeat NOTHING that has been predicted by the alleged "settled science" has come has been true. Yet you still deny the obvious. The sad and pathetic truth is you are the denier not me. Your blind faith that man has no effect on the earth is foolish. Call it what you will but your the one denying the preponderance of science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Your blind faith that man has no effect on the earth is foolish. Call it what you will but your the one denying the preponderance of science. I believe that are far bigger and more powerful influences on our climate than us. It's the arrogance of man that leads him to believe we and only we are the levers of change in the climate. Preponderance of science? Really? You mean all those failed computer models that they hung their hats on and now blithely ignore now that they've failed? The one that was exposed as having cooked the numbers to achieve a desired result? THAT preponderance of science? Your inability to accept reality is really beyond belief. It seriously borders on mental illness. You really should see a doctor sooner rather than later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Yeah, she's taking a dumb stance, but so is your stance on climate change. However, Fired would tell you that democracy is not a good form of government as he's raved and ranted against popular vote here on more than a few pages and posts. I'm pretty sure others here have too. I believe they always fail by rotting from the inside out? Hell our founders that you like to speak of every once in a great while said the same thing, Democracy Always Fails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Democracy is 2 lions and a lamb voting on what's for dinner...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I believe that are far bigger and more powerful influences on our climate than us. It's the arrogance of man that leads him to believe we and only we are the levers of change in the climate. Preponderance of science? Really? You mean all those failed computer models that they hung their hats on and now blithely ignore now that they've failed? The one that was exposed as having cooked the numbers to achieve a desired result? THAT preponderance of science? Your inability to accept reality is really beyond belief. It seriously borders on mental illness. You really should see a doctor sooner rather than later. Lol! Greater density than neutron star matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I believe that are far bigger and more powerful influences on our climate than us. It's the arrogance of man that leads him to believe we and only we are the levers of change in the climate. Preponderance of science? Really? You mean all those failed computer models that they hung their hats on and now blithely ignore now that they've failed? The one that was exposed as having cooked the numbers to achieve a desired result? THAT preponderance of science? Your inability to accept reality is really beyond belief. It seriously borders on mental illness. You really should see a doctor sooner rather than later. Your inability to accept scientific evidence because it interferes with your beliefs in government is a fault that you share with many conservatives. I don't have the same level of resistance to accepting climate change because i have no innate hatred of government regulation. Your failing is that while you chant away about how models fail and all this other noise you wish to use to cloud the picture, the problem is that accepting climate change would force you to accept governmental changes like more regulation which seems to be hard for you to do. It is not arrogance for humans to believe that they using their cognitive abilities have changed our climate nor overcome nature to a quantifiable extent. One only has to look at the pictures coming out of Beijing to see that we can have some serious effects on our planet. Even now we know, or those of us so arrogant to believe, that we have overcome Earth's natural level of population through the Haber process, which allows us to grow more food than would be possible without this artificial means of fertilizing the soil for crop growth. Once you take a serious look at what the human population on this planet has done to change the planet around us, you'll realize that it is not arrogance, but a reality. Read about how we have changed the course of the Mississippi and effected the silt flows that for thousands of years built up in the delta. Look at how our history of damning rivers has affected spawning runs See how the overuse of that very fertilizer used for getting greener lawns has damaged our rivers, streams and lakes. We are not a gentle species, we have done more than co-opt nature, we have run over it like a defensive end hitting a QB. So it's not arrogance, it is the acceptance that we have engineered ourselves into a dominance over the natural processes of this planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I believe they always fail by rotting from the inside out? Hell our founders that you like to speak of every once in a great while said the same thing, Democracy Always Fails. I believe that once again your missing the point. But then again you miss that often, and would you prefer we not have a representative democracy? Or as you are going to call it, a Republic. Either way i don't believe the lady was suggesting a true democracy but the variations of it that Western countries have. And she's still wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Democracy is 2 lions and a lamb voting on what's for dinner...... And yet there must be some level of democracy for our Republic to work, to maintain "it's for the people by the people". Too bad that doesn't fit in trite quotes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 One only has to look at the pictures coming out of Beijing to see that we can have some serious effects on our planet. . And China is who the UN thinks we should emulate. FAIL! If you believe in evolution the you should also believe that how we affect the world around us is also part of the natural process. To believe otherwise is to assume that humanity is somehow separate and above the natural order. We were created and not a part of evolution? Are we aliens placed in this environment and thus upsetting its balance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 And China is who the UN thinks we should emulate. FAIL! If you believe in evolution the you should also believe that how we affect the world around us is also part of the natural process. To believe otherwise is to assume that humanity is somehow separate and above the natural order. We were created and not a part of evolution? Are we aliens placed in this environment and thus upsetting its balance? Good job, that was truly a wonderful bit of deflection. This is a prime example of 4th and long punting. Your initial "too arrogant" bit got thrown for a loss and now your going with are we outside of "the natural process." I reject the stupid assertion that since we are part of a process everything we do must be part of the process. We have stepped for outside of micro let alone macro evolution and despite what ever word games are coming, I think we've changed the game on our planet and that has consequences. OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 (edited) Weather models are often entirely wrong too. Is meteorology bunk science? Climate modeling is far more complicated. To expect scientists to get it 100% right the first time is naive. As is blanketly assuming that since the models were wrong that everything is just a-okay. However, it is also naive to try to control it through legislation at this point without first better understanding what impacts any policies may or may not make. Edited January 21, 2014 by NickF1011 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Good job, that was truly a wonderful bit of deflection. This is a prime example of 4th and long punting. Your initial "too arrogant" bit got thrown for a loss and now your going with are we outside of "the natural process." I reject the stupid assertion that since we are part of a process everything we do must be part of the process. We have stepped for outside of micro let alone macro evolution and despite what ever word games are coming, I think we've changed the game on our planet and that has consequences. OR Wow! I shouldn't be surprised that went completely over your head. It follows the same train of thought about how man's contribution to disrupting the climate and our arrogance in that regards. I suppose you had to try and call it a deflection since you didn't comprehend it. I believe we are a minor player in a process we don't even fully grasp. To say "the science is settled" is complete arrogance. There was a time scientist said the earth was flat and was the center of the universe and grain transformed into mice. They even said it wasn't possible to exceed the sound barrier. If the arrogance of the climate change scientists existed then, we'd still believe that. After all, the science is settled! No need to discuss or question it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Wow! I shouldn't be surprised that went completely over your head. It follows the same train of thought about how man's contribution to disrupting the climate and our arrogance in that regards. I suppose you had to try and call it a deflection since you didn't comprehend it. I believe we are a minor player in a process we don't even fully grasp. To say "the science is settled" is complete arrogance. There was a time scientist said the earth was flat and was the center of the universe and grain transformed into mice. They even said it wasn't possible to exceed the sound barrier. If the arrogance of the climate change scientists existed then, we'd still believe that. After all, the science is settled! No need to discuss or question it! LOL, your funny. I understood what you were saying, and i think it's faulty. By the way who are you arguing with anyways? No one here has said that the science is settled. If that is what your supposedly debating with me then you need to reread what I've wrote. I said preponderance of evidence. Evidence. I believe that we are a major player and are effecting our climate in unnatural ways. You can say that we are not and that we are minor players but history and science kills that theory fairly quickly. Just take a look at what we are capable of doing to the process. 1. We have managed to contaminate our drinking water with prescription medication. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/emerging/info_sheet_pharmaceuticals/en/ 2. We have damaged our waterways, lakes, rivers and even the Gulf of Mexico with our excess fertilizer. http://thegazette.com/2013/08/04/farm-fertilizer-runoff-wreaking-havoc/ 3. We have created a floating mass of plastic and debris in our largest ocean http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/?ar_a=1 4. Overuse of antibiotics in ourselves and our food supply has helped create resistant strains http://www.mayoclinic.org/antibiotics/art-20045720 These are just a few small examples of how we are changing the world around us in not so good ways on a daily basis and it's time for you to pull your head out of the sand ( or possibly your ass) and start accepting that your theory that we can not alter the natural process and have minimal effect on the planet. It's clearly willful ignorance that you believe we can't effect it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 LOL, your funny. I understood what you were saying, and i think it's faulty. By the way who are you arguing with anyways? No one here has said that the science is settled. If that is what your supposedly debating with me then you need to reread what I've wrote. I said preponderance of evidence. Evidence. I believe that we are a major player and are effecting our climate in unnatural ways. You can say that we are not and that we are minor players but history and science kills that theory fairly quickly. Just take a look at what we are capable of doing to the process. 1. We have managed to contaminate our drinking water with prescription medication. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/emerging/info_sheet_pharmaceuticals/en/ 2. We have damaged our waterways, lakes, rivers and even the Gulf of Mexico with our excess fertilizer. http://thegazette.com/2013/08/04/farm-fertilizer-runoff-wreaking-havoc/ 3. We have created a floating mass of plastic and debris in our largest ocean http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/?ar_a=1 4. Overuse of antibiotics in ourselves and our food supply has helped create resistant strains http://www.mayoclinic.org/antibiotics/art-20045720 These are just a few small examples of how we are changing the world around us in not so good ways on a daily basis and it's time for you to pull your head out of the sand ( or possibly your ass) and start accepting that your theory that we can not alter the natural process and have minimal effect on the planet. It's clearly willful ignorance that you believe we can't effect it. Have any of those things cause global climate change? I'm completely on-board with conservation. In fact, within the huge Fortune 500 company that employs me, my name is the one globally tied to reducing our paper usage. However, there's a huge jump from conservation to assuming we have that large of an impact on climate when there are far more powerful influences at play. The "settled science" comment comes from the GCC community who try to silence any dissent by saying no further discussion is needed since the "science is settled". Any true scientist knows that it's never settled. BTW, you used "your" wrong again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 The "settled science" comment comes from the GCC community who try to silence any dissent by saying no further discussion is needed since the "science is settled". Any true scientist knows that it's never settled. It is all but settled that we do impact the climate. The only real debate in the peer-reviewed scientific community is to what extent and if/how we can reduce it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 It is all but settled that we do impact the climate. The only real debate in the peer-reviewed scientific community is to what extent and if/how we can reduce it. The "to what extent" part is called settled as well. They will brook no further discussion on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 The "to what extent" part is called settled as well. They will brook no further discussion on the matter. Who is the "they" you are referring to? The IPCC? "They" are but a fraction of the scientific community. There's plenty of active debate continuing on the subject in academia. The IPCC is the most vocal about it since they have been self-designated as the "policy-setters". Doesn't mean they are the end-all-be-all of scientific consensus though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.