[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
It validates the very real perception that many global warming religious fanatics are bat-shit crazy.[/quote]
And the second part?
Not to go all “It takes both ends to make the middle”, but it’s not like there haven’t been centuries of religious zealots that believe the exact opposite.
So really, aren’t both extremes bat shit crazy? Or is the only sane side the one you’re on?
[/quote]
There are plenty of bat shit crazy people to go around. This includes the doomsayers who believe our use of natural resources will cause the planet to implode upon itself killing off all life forms (hyperbole ALERT) and those who think we can use all our natural resources without any consequences at all.
I believe the global warming religious alarmists are akin to the religious alarmists constantly predicting the precise date of Armageddon and the Rapture. Every time, and it is every time, their predictions do not come true, they simply make new ones.
[/quote]
Yeah who needs science
[/quote]
Are you referring to the science that predicted the ice caps would be gone by last year which instead have increased by something like 50%? Or perhaps the science that predicted the Himalayan glaciers melting but in which IPCC “scientists” admitted was wrong. Or the science that predicted an ice age and massive famines and resulting human depopulation that never occurred? Or the prediction of milder winters? Oops, wrong again.
[/quote]
I am talking about the change that is happening every day , it is in the news .
: a political leader who tries to get support by making false claims and promises and using arguments based on emotion rather than reason
I know you could claim that people that say Climate Change is happening are guilty of this but the key word is (REASON) and science is that reason . The subject is to easy to demagogue because of the complexity .
Look at the Scientists VS: Faux news and the Oil companies and the people heavily invested in the Carbon Energy Industry
The problem is our watch dog is heavily invested , financially
I know you could claim that people that say Climate Change is happening are guilty of this but the key word is (REASON) and science is that reason . [/quote]
Absolutely. The government should drug the water supply to sterilise the population, open eco-gulags for ‘deniers’ and carry out compulsory abortions. Otherwise the UFOs will destroy all life on earth.
The climate IS changing. It has been changing, it will continue to change. Anybody who dismisses climate science out of hand as pseudoscience is doing themselves a disservice as I see a number of people on this thread doing. This is a serious issue that deserves serious consideration.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
The climate IS changing. It has been changing, it will continue to change. Anybody who dismisses climate science out of hand as pseudoscience is doing themselves a disservice as I see a number of people on this thread doing. This is a serious issue that deserves serious consideration.[/quote]
Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist along with other impressive accomplishments on his distinguished professional resume.
In an interview, he laughed off man-made climate change as nonsense and a money-making industry for the green lobby, which approaches the subject with a religious fervor. Explained Woodcock:
“The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences. The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ - in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent. There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, it’s not significant…”
Dr. Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace co-founder, has also publicly expressed the opinion that “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years…no actual proof, as it is understood in science, actually exists.”
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist along with other impressive accomplishments on his distinguished professional resume…[/quote]
If appeals to authority are going to stand as evidence here, you are going to lose, in both quantity and quality.
[quote]CLINK wrote:
LOL @ those who think global warming is not real, and argue to prove it by citing all the snow and precipitation we’ve been having. [/quote]
I think you will find not one person has alleged that the climate does not change, or may in fact be changing. The issue is anthropocentricity, because the answer to that has a radical effect on what actions should be taken.
If we pour as much as we do into prevention, and it turns out we had little effect, then we have accrued a double detriment. We will have had huge expenditure, harmed our industries and economies, but we will receive nothing in return.
"When everything is proof of climate change, warmists enlist even dinosaurs in their cause…
Two British professors, Dr Wilkinson and Prof. Ruxton, [allege] that sauropods of the Mesozoic Era, 150 million years ago, could have broken wind to the extent of “around 472 million tonnes of methane per year.”
