[quote]Eli B wrote:
Oh its going to be rough to switch to wind, tide, solar, carbon capture, nuclear and all that. But it has to be done.[/quote]
Well because you say so that must make it need to happen… Nutjob.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
).[/quote]
[/quote]
I question the results when the employer of the scientist is such an ambiguous entity. So just dismissing that someone in the government is funding this is very ignorant.[/quote]
Fair enough, but some would say that dismissing a scientific argument just because the government helped pay for the research is oh so very ignorant. Can ya feel me brotha?
[/quote]
Yes, I feel you, but when most of it is paid for by the state governments and the way ‘corrective measures’ include more state control over the citizens, I assume that the science might be bias. It is like the funding of the School of Keynesian Economics, a lot of state dollars in the funding, strange when the prescribed measures are again more state control or spending.
[quote]
And if anyone could find REAL HARD evidence that Global Warming is some kind of mass conspiracy (and believe me, it would have to be MASSIVE, like beyond what anyone here comprehends because of all the various forms of data that support GW), it would definitely be the biggest scandal in modern history.[/quote]
Why would it have to massive, Occar’s razor? Shouldn’t scientific theories or findings be easily comprehensive and understood instead of having a bunch of complexities that most scientist I know have a hard time explaining (I live on a university campus).[/quote]
I will apply Occams razor. Scientists take their jobs seriously. They are all but unanimous in their agreement that climate change is happening. They are not part of some massive conspiracy to take away personal liberties.
I think I basically understand the theory of global warming.
Since the industrial revolution the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has increased dramatically.
It is a known property of Carbon dioxide that it traps heat.
Edit: See graph above.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
Oh its going to be rough to switch to wind, tide, solar, carbon capture, nuclear and all that. But it has to be done.[/quote]
Well because you say so that must make it need to happen… Nutjob.[/quote]
No i’m just saying what the vast majority of the scientific community is saying. You can put your head in the sand or you can face it.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]GCF wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
The problem with Climate Change is politics. The Conservatards don’t want to admit the Lefties might have a point, and a good deal of the Lefties have poisoned the science by blowing it out of proportion. What we aren’t doing is unnatural per se. However, we are speeding up a natural process to our detriment.[/quote]
Blown it out of proportion?! According to these Austrlian scientists none of us will be alive in 300 years!
Planet Earth will be too hot for humans to inhabit in just 300 years, a group of scientists are saying.
Australian scientists have warned half the planet could “simply become too hot” for human habitation by the year 2300.
New research by the University of NSW has forecast the effect of climate change over the next three centuries, a longer time horizon than that considered in many similar studies.
It suggests without action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, mankind’s activities could prompt average temperatures to rise as much as 10 to 12 per cent in the next three centuries.
The research, produced in partnership with the Purdue University in the United States, is published in the US-based scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) on Tuesday.
“Much of the climate change debate has been about whether the world will succeed in keeping global warming to the relatively safe level of only two degrees celsius by 2100,” said Professor Tony McMichael, from the Australian National University (ANU), in an accompanying paper also published in the PNAS.
“But climate change will not stop in 2100, and under realistic scenarios out to 2300, we may be faced with temperature increases of 12 degrees or even more.”
Prof McMichael said if this were to happen, then current worries about sea level rises, occasional heatwaves and bushfires, biodiversity loss and agricultural difficulties would “pale into insignificance” compared to the global impacts.
Such a temperature rise would pose a “considerable threat to the survival of our species”, he said, because “as much as half the currently inhabited globe may simply become too hot for people to live there”.
Prof McMichael was joined by co-author Associate Professor Keith Dear, also from the ANU.
They describe the UNSW-Purdue study as “important and necessary” as, they said, there was a need to refocus government attention on the health impacts of global temperature rise.
There was also a real possibility, they said, that much of the existing climate modelling had underestimated the rate of global temperature rise.
Dr Dear said scientific authorities on the issue, such as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), had struck a cautious tone in forecasting future temperature rise and its impact.
“In presenting its warnings about the future, the IPCC is very careful to be conservative, using mild language and low estimates of impacts,” Dr Dear said.
“This is appropriate for a scientific body, but world governments - including our own - should be honest with us about the full range of potential dangers posed by uncontrolled emissions and the extremes of climate change that would inevitably result.”
- AAP
[/quote]
This is exactly the kind of inflammatory shit that makes people angry. This isn’t necessarily bullshit, but it’s sort of ridiculous to try and predict what’s going to happen 300 years from now based on 100 years of data. [/quote]
It is ridiculous to try to predict anything in the future, since most things are too complex to predict to any real degree besides generalities.[/quote]
Bold prediction: If the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase, the planet will continue to warm.
Bold prediction 2. The amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide will increase because we arent currently changing anything.
40 years ago a scientific consensus was made that we are going into the next ice age, 30 years after that the consensus was made that we are going into global warming.
Yeah great track record there. Maybe just maybe the earth goes through cycles and now that there is a clear downward trend.(after this winter how can anyone still believe in GW).
But no, lets attack our freedom because what the totalitarians(liberals) are now saying they need to save us from something that isn’t there and only there beloved government can solve the problem.
Never let a crisis go to waist, you guys really know how to live by that don’t you.
[quote]John S. wrote:
40 years ago a scientific consensus was made that we are going into the next ice age, 30 years after that the consensus was made that we are going into global warming.
[/quote]
In the face of scientific concensus:
How can you be so certain that climate change isn’t happening? This is the question that typically makes right wing nutjob’s heads explode into shrapnels of incoherent conspiracy theory.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I’m gonna go buy a Prius[/quote]
If you really want to do some damage to the environment, you should.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
How can you be so certain that climate change isn’t happening? This is the question that typically makes right wing nutjob’s heads explode into shrapnels of incoherent conspiracy theory.
[/quote]
You are a dumbass.
You can not ask me to prove a negative, What you are asking me to do would be the same as me asking you to prove God isn’t real.
You should retreat and come up with a better argument.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
How can you be so certain that climate change isn’t happening? This is the question that typically makes right wing nutjob’s heads explode into shrapnels of incoherent conspiracy theory.
[/quote]
You are a dumbass.
You can not ask me to prove a negative, What you are asking me to do would be the same as me asking you to prove God isn’t real.
You should retreat and come up with a better argument.[/quote]
I didn’t ask you to PROVE that man-made global warming doesn’t exist, I asked you to come up with some evidence it doesn’t exist.
Certainly you can evaluate the merits of an argument and decide one way or the other based on reason and not on knee-jerk assumptions?
It kind of sounds like you are floundering. Calling me a dumbass isn’t an argument. Its an ad-hominem attack and its the last refuge of the outgunned in a debate.
Prosecutor: Prove you aren’t the murderer
Defendant: You can’t prove a negative
Prosecutor: You’re right. You’re free to go.
You might want to read this article on the proving of a negative.
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html
You might also want to read this. If its too much just read the first paragraph
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
How can you be so certain that climate change isn’t happening? This is the question that typically makes right wing nutjob’s heads explode into shrapnels of incoherent conspiracy theory.
[/quote]
You are a dumbass.
You can not ask me to prove a negative, What you are asking me to do would be the same as me asking you to prove God isn’t real.
You should retreat and come up with a better argument.[/quote]
You sir are a very scary person I’ve read most of your posts and they are all frightening to say the least. It’s happening, get over it and as a country lets do something about it.
[quote]John S. wrote:
So I warn about the chance of hyperinflation which is backed by Austrian economics and I am laughed at and called a nutjob, GCF posts stuff like that and he is the sane one?
[/quote]
You are also a homophobe and as everyone here on TM knows that means you are actually gay.
[quote]drewh wrote:
You sir are a very scary person I’ve read most of your posts and they are all frightening to say the least. It’s happening, get over it and as a country lets do something about it. [/quote]
Oh I have no doubt for the next 2 years I will have to see something pass, but then my guy will enter in and will repeal all the nonsense, same thing that is going to happen with the health care bill.
Whats scary about a limited government? Is Freedom really that scary? There is no “we”.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Bold prediction: If the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase, the planet will continue to warm.
Bold prediction 2. The amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide will increase because we arent currently changing anything.
[/quote]
Again - total BS - no causal link between rise in co2 and a rise in temperature EXCEPT for the undisputible fact that a rise in temperature causes a rise in atmospheric co2 - so you have it back-ass-wards - just reading the data.
Also see my ealier link where the british dude totally busts the entire concept altogther form a scientific and mathematic certainty.
You need to catch up on the real science and quit reading all of the garbage pseudo-science the AGW crowd has been polluting the air with . . .
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
).[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
Why would it have to massive, [/quote]
Well, what most scientists in literally dozens of fields have realized is that the environment is changing rapidly in many ways as a response to an increase in temperature. For instance, we know that birds are migrating later in the fall and sooner in the winter each year. Hundreds of species populations and migratory patterns all show that the earth is warming. Therefore it’s not as simple as paying off a few climatologists to create some data, someone would literally be paying off thousands and thousands of scientists (including almost every major university in this country) to create data. It’s just practically unimaginable.
Short answer is that there is an abundance of data to support that GW is real. That doesn’t mean we know why though.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
40 years ago a scientific consensus was made that we are going into the next ice age, 30 years after that the consensus was made that we are going into global warming.
[/quote]
In the face of scientific concensus:
How can you be so certain that climate change isn’t happening? This is the question that typically makes right wing nutjob’s heads explode into shrapnels of incoherent conspiracy theory.
[/quote]
That is pretty much what us rightwing nutjobs are saying…climate change has been happening, and it has been happening for a very long time. No need to freak out now.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]drewh wrote:
You sir are a very scary person I’ve read most of your posts and they are all frightening to say the least. It’s happening, get over it and as a country lets do something about it. [/quote]
Oh I have no doubt for the next 2 years I will have to see something pass, but then my guy will enter in and will repeal all the nonsense, same thing that is going to happen with the health care bill.
Whats scary about a limited government? Is Freedom really that scary? There is no “we”.[/quote]
I don’t foresee any conservatives in office for quite some time.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Bold prediction: If the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase, the planet will continue to warm.
Bold prediction 2. The amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide will increase because we arent currently changing anything.
[/quote]
Again - total BS - no causal link between rise in co2 and a rise in temperature EXCEPT for the undisputible fact that a rise in temperature causes a rise in atmospheric co2 - so you have it back-ass-wards - just reading the data.
Also see my ealier link where the british dude totally busts the entire concept altogther form a scientific and mathematic certainty.
You need to catch up on the real science and quit reading all of the garbage pseudo-science the AGW crowd has been polluting the air with . . .[/quote]
I read as much as I could of your junk science link. I found it utterly incomprehensible. Without disputing the claims, what are your qualifications for understanding the complicated mathematical formulas and advanced chemistry and physics presented on that site?
[quote]gunsaregood wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
40 years ago a scientific consensus was made that we are going into the next ice age, 30 years after that the consensus was made that we are going into global warming.
[/quote]
In the face of scientific concensus:
How can you be so certain that climate change isn’t happening? This is the question that typically makes right wing nutjob’s heads explode into shrapnels of incoherent conspiracy theory.
[/quote]
That is pretty much what us rightwing nutjobs are saying…climate change has been happening, and it has been happening for a very long time. No need to freak out now.[/quote]
To be fair, I only called him a nutjob after he called me a nutjob. I try to stay away from that kind of thing as its counter productive. I am not trying to repress view points.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Bold prediction: If the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase, the planet will continue to warm.
Bold prediction 2. The amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide will increase because we arent currently changing anything.
[/quote]
Again - total BS - no causal link between rise in co2 and a rise in temperature EXCEPT for the undisputible fact that a rise in temperature causes a rise in atmospheric co2 - so you have it back-ass-wards - just reading the data.
Also see my ealier link where the british dude totally busts the entire concept altogther form a scientific and mathematic certainty.
You need to catch up on the real science and quit reading all of the garbage pseudo-science the AGW crowd has been polluting the air with . . .[/quote]
I read as much as I could of your junk science link. I found it utterly incomprehensible. Without disputing the claims, what are your qualifications for understanding the complicated mathematical formulas and advanced chemistry and physics presented on that site?[/quote]
What does my qualifications have to do with the veracity of the data, formulae, equations and conclusions on that site? NADA - that’s what. Argue the data.
What, do you need it explained to you in simple english to comprehend it?