How to Combat Anti-Climate Change Fools

[Makavali]

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Easy solution to all those that Do Not believe that we are a large part of the increased climate change:

Take them out into their Escalades, Navigators, Hummers and Land Rovers. Lock them in so they cannot get out, turn on the engine and

then “Stick a Banana in their TailPipe” and see how long they last before a slow death takes them to whatever heaven they believe in.

People seem to forget that this little sphere we live on is a CLOSED ECO SYSTEM ! There will be no place to hide when it all comes

crashing down…[/quote]

Earth isn’t a closed system.

Not that I think climate change is bunk, but seriously - Earth is not a closed system.

[csulli]

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Easy solution to all those that Do Not believe that we are a large part of the increased climate change:

Take them out into their Escalades, Navigators, Hummers and Land Rovers. Lock them in so they cannot get out, turn on the engine and

then “Stick a Banana in their TailPipe” and see how long they last before a slow death takes them to whatever heaven they believe in.

People seem to forget that this little sphere we live on is a CLOSED ECO SYSTEM ! There will be no place to hide when it all comes

crashing down…[/quote]
LOL

What exactly will happen when it “crashes down”? What kind of danger do you have in kind?

(This should be good)

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Number of studies doesn’t equal number of scientists. One bad scientist publishing 300 studies isn’t better than a team of good scientists publishing one study.

And even further, number of studies can be very misleading. When the government picks sides in a scientific debate, it will only fund studies designed to prove the itself right.

I’d question what the 65% of the studies that didn’t get included in that 97% actually said.

Even using the search terms “climate change” and “global warming” is biased to begin with excluding studies that don’t use the buzz words of the believer crowd.[/quote]

First of all, if you are producing a study that denies the existence of “climate change” or “global warming” or any of the other buzz words those words would still be in the study somewhere. Most likely preceded by words such as “there is no” or followed by words such “is not happening”. So in that sense the search parameters are not biased at all.

The 35% number simply refers to studies that take a stance one way or another. The other 65% were not dealing with whether or not climate change was occurring in and of itself. The point is that 97% of studies that DO take a stance one way or the other take the stance that climate change IS occurring.[/quote]

Maybe, maybe not. One could Say “the world is cooling”, or some other such thing. I see no reason to believe that the search is all inclusive. Studies on things like solar cycles could very well get left out.

And NO, someone read the abstracts and decided that 65% of the abstracts took no stance. What criteria for was there for supporting vs denying were there? If a study said the globe is warming, but humans account for only .003%, did they take that as supporting anthropomorphic climate change? If the study said the globe is cooling, but humans are having an impact on the changes, is that supportive? What if they said it’s warming, but didn’t analyze the human impact?

I’m sure you could choose criteria to warp the results either way.

And again, even then, number of studies <> number of scientists.

[jasmincar]

I would be interested in seeing a psychological study explaining why some people outside this field think they know climate science and can refute scientists. Do you actually believe what you write?

The same phenomenom happens with evolution and creationnism. I want to know WHY people want creationnism to be true and climate change to be wrong so bad.

[DBCooper]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
What about this, Bert?

Democratic senator uses Okla. tornado for anti-GOP rant over global warming

You think this guy’s on track? Is he your type of man on this subject? Are Republicans causing Oklahoma tornadoes?[/quote]

I don’t know enough about tornadoes to make a call one way or the other. His rant is completely ridiculous though.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
I would be interested in seeing a psychological study explaining why some people outside this field think they know climate science and can refute scientists. Do you actually believe what you write?

The same phenomenom happens with evolution and creationnism. I want to know WHY people want creationnism to be true and climate change to be wrong so bad.[/quote]

Any highly political issue is that way. On both sides. And the “scientific consensus” claims are generally made by politicians or political bodies like the IPCC.

Remember, there was (or is) scientific consensus that:
The earth is flat.
The earth is the center of the universe.
The sun is the center of the universe.
Newton discovered the absolute laws of the universe.
We should be entering an ice age.
The Ozone layer is going to kill us all.
The universe is static.
Diabetics should eat mainly grains.
Saturated fat will kill you.
Hydrogenated oil is a health food
And on and on and on.

I’m not saying I know the answer. I’m not saying the earth isn’t warming. I’m saying the same science that can’t predict local weather better than a couple of days out has no freaking idea what the global climate is going to to in the oncoming centuries. If a scientist claims to have it all figured out, he’s full of shit.

[therajraj]

I still say this simple video is pretty good argument.

The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See

[drunkpig]

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
I would be interested in seeing a psychological study explaining why some people outside this field think they know climate science and can refute scientists. Do you actually believe what you write?

The same phenomenom happens with evolution and creationnism. I want to know WHY people want creationnism to be true and climate change to be wrong so bad.[/quote]

One could pose the equally opposite questions to people who blindly follow pop-science as if it is a religion.

Also, you seem all to eager to misconstrue the argument in order to be part of the popular crowd. I don’t think anyone is arguing that there is no climate change occurring. So, your argument fails before leaving the gate.

The issue is AGW - anthropogenic global warming.

Its not a phenomenon. Perhaps you should go read up on the issues before waxing expert on them.

[bpick86]

Is the climate warming, Yes it is over the past 100 years or so. However, these scientists seem to forget that they are looking at a very small sample of the life span of Earth. The global warming scientists are essentially seeing the equivalent of flipping a coin and the coin lands on heads twice in a row. From those two consecutive coin flips they have determined that the coin will always hit on heads from here on out.

[countingbeans]

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
and climate change to be wrong so bad.[/quote]

PArt of it is what DD said. Man is often times arrogant enough to think we can out smart nature 100% of the time and/or figure out nature 100% of the time. Some of us aren’t that arrogant and want to wait and see before we make any hasty choices that have unintended consequences that nobody saw or cared to see coming.

So in short some of us dont’ want to make knee jerk reactions that could ultimately lead to worse outcomes than if we took the time to think of a better solution on more mature data.

The other side of this is that I don’t care if climate change is or isn’t happening, if the government wants it to be “happening” so they can garner more control, more power and increase tax revenues, they will push that agenda. I don’t want government to have anymore control over our day-to-day lives than they already have. So there is that.

If you think the establishment political left pushes this because they give a single fuck about the Earth, you are sadly mistaken. They push this because they want green alright, green dollars in their pockets. See Pelosi’s husband “winning” billions of government contracts, and extrapolate that over the “green” industry…

So if we are talking to independent scientists that are freaking out, I’ll listen. Any news piece from partisan source or bullshit out of a politicians mouth can get bent…

[spiderman739]

[quote]JEATON wrote:

Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming 'not as likely'

Whoops…[/quote]

After reading the article it seems to me that what they are saying is that the slowdown in temperature increases is a temporary thing and that, in the long term there wont be much of a difference with earlier predictions

But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly.

The authors calculate that over the coming decades global average temperatures will warm about 20% more slowly than expected.But when it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates. The IPCC said that climate sensitivity was in the range of 2.0-4.5C.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]spiderman739 wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming 'not as likely'

Whoops…[/quote]

After reading the article it seems to me that what they are saying is that the slowdown in temperature increases is a temporary thing and that, in the long term there wont be much of a difference with earlier predictions

But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly.

The authors calculate that over the coming decades global average temperatures will warm about 20% more slowly than expected.But when it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates. The IPCC said that climate sensitivity was in the range of 2.0-4.5C.[/quote]

Oh right. They completely failed to predict this temperature stall, but NOW they really really have it figured out and it is about to happen just like they predicted this time for sure.

Please aslo remember the IPCC is a political body. Politicians ultimately oversee and approve of everything the IPCC says and does.

[DBCooper]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
and climate change to be wrong so bad.[/quote]

PArt of it is what DD said. Man is often times arrogant enough to think we can out smart nature 100% of the time and/or figure out nature 100% of the time. Some of us aren’t that arrogant and want to wait and see before we make any hasty choices that have unintended consequences that nobody saw or cared to see coming.

So in short some of us dont’ want to make knee jerk reactions that could ultimately lead to worse outcomes than if we took the time to think of a better solution on more mature data.

The other side of this is that I don’t care if climate change is or isn’t happening, if the government wants it to be “happening” so they can garner more control, more power and increase tax revenues, they will push that agenda. I don’t want government to have anymore control over our day-to-day lives than they already have. So there is that.

If you think the establishment political left pushes this because they give a single fuck about the Earth, you are sadly mistaken. They push this because they want green alright, green dollars in their pockets. See Pelosi’s husband “winning” billions of government contracts, and extrapolate that over the “green” industry…

So if we are talking to independent scientists that are freaking out, I’ll listen. Any news piece from partisan source or bullshit out of a politicians mouth can get bent…[/quote]

It’s not a kneejerk reaction when we are talking about preparing for the changes that will accompany climate change. If you really believe that it is some sort of conspiracy from the left, then fine. I don’t know how you get out of bed and face the world each day with that sort of attitude, but that’s your prerogative. If you think there is any sort of legitimacy to your argument that the left pushes this on us for monetary gain, do you feel the same way about anti-climate change studies and so forth? After all, by virtue of your own logic, isn’t it just as cogent to argue that the RIGHT is pushing the denial aspect on us because THEY stand to lose money?

As far as independent scientific research goes, there are plenty that are “freaking out”, as you put it. I think the more appropriate response is simple vigilance about the ways our lives will change if we are unprepared for climate change. There are two ends of this spectrum: those who bury their head in the sand and say it isn’t happening and that it isn’t AGW, and those who are convinced we are at a crisis stage and are lucky to have made it this long as a species. Neither side is really touting the truth of the issue, or the pertinent aspects of the issue.

Like I said earlier in this thread, we need to prepare for potential national security issues as well as potential life quality issues. We don’t need to overreact and flip the fuck out, nor do we need to sit here and argue that because people were wrong about the shape of the Earth at one point that it’s possible the large majority of a much more well-informed science community could be wrong about this. The disconnect in logical thinking on that one is astounding.

[DBCooper]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]spiderman739 wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming 'not as likely'

Whoops…[/quote]

After reading the article it seems to me that what they are saying is that the slowdown in temperature increases is a temporary thing and that, in the long term there wont be much of a difference with earlier predictions

But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly.

The authors calculate that over the coming decades global average temperatures will warm about 20% more slowly than expected.But when it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates. The IPCC said that climate sensitivity was in the range of 2.0-4.5C.[/quote]

Oh right. They completely failed to predict this temperature stall, but NOW they really really have it figured out and it is about to happen just like they predicted this time for sure.

Please aslo remember the IPCC is a political body. Politicians ultimately oversee and approve of everything the IPCC says and does.[/quote]

No, they don’t. They just give the IPCC a bunch of money and let them do their thing. The govt is too fucking stupid to be so effective at brainwashing the science community that a huge majority of it is now in lockstep with them. You place too much faith in the ability of the govt to get things done. They can’t even run what should have been a quiet little IRS probe without getting caught.

[countingbeans]

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

It’s not a kneejerk reaction when we are talking about preparing for the changes that will accompany climate change. [/quote]

If by we, you mean private citizens looking at the way they live their lives and making changes that hopefully have a positive impact, then yes it is a good thing.

I don’t want the government getting its greedy, corrupt talons on the issue. Lets us, the people work this out and fix this problem. Carbon taxes, which I believe you said you were against, are a knee jerk reaction that gives government more control over your life, and will have unintended consequence beyond measure.

If you really believe that it is some sort of conspiracy from the left, then fine. I don’t know how you get out of bed and face the world each day with that sort of attitude, but that’s your prerogative.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

If you think there is any sort of legitimacy to your argument that the left pushes this on us for monetary gain, do you feel the same way about anti-climate change studies and so forth? After all, by virtue of your own logic, isn’t it just as cogent to argue that the RIGHT is pushing the denial aspect on us because THEY stand to lose money?

Of course the establishment political right has cards on the table. I don’t know why you assume that because I only pointed out the left’s appeared aim in this debate, that I absolve the right’s role in underhanded shitty government. I don’t, please stop making the assumption.

I think it is silly, with all the examples one can look too of government corruption (congress exempting itself from its own laws, HELLO) you think I’m the one wildly off base in suggesting these career talking heads have ulterior motives.

nor do we need to sit here and argue that because people were wrong about the shape of the Earth at one point that it’s possible the large majority of a much more well-informed science community could be wrong about this. The disconnect in logical thinking on that one is astounding.

You’re very bright, I know you didn’t miss the intended point of DD’s statement to that effect. Stop playing dumb when it suits your argument. We are all well aware you aren’t.

[pat]

Still electric cars suck assholes. Until you can go more than a hundred or two miles on them and be able to charge them in less than 15 minutes, they will never be viable and always be marginal.

[SkyzykS]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Easy solution to all those that Do Not believe that we are a large part of the increased climate change:

Take them out into their Escalades, Navigators, Hummers and Land Rovers. Lock them in so they cannot get out, turn on the engine and

then “Stick a Banana in their TailPipe” and see how long they last before a slow death takes them to whatever heaven they believe in.

People seem to forget that this little sphere we live on is a CLOSED ECO SYSTEM ! There will be no place to hide when it all comes

crashing down…[/quote]

So, if I get this right, CO2 is rising rapidly in this closed system, right?

Therefore the oxygen levels must be dropping concomitantly.

Then why are we not suffering from a lack of oxygen, and there is nothing being said about what will happen when we run out of it?

[/quote]

holy shit why don’t those scientists call Skyzz . They would work this shit qwik
[/quote]

Well, I think that “We are running out of oxygen and are going to suffocate” would get more cooperation than “The planet is warming up and we need to tax your carbon usage” wouldn’t it?

If both parts were true, that is.

[espenl]

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I still say this simple video is pretty good argument.

The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See

[/quote]
This one sums up my views as well.

[pat]

[quote]pat wrote:
Still electric cars suck assholes. Until you can go more than a hundred or two miles on them and be able to charge them in less than 15 minutes, they will never be viable and always be marginal.[/quote]

Crap… I was in the wrong thread… I will repost in the right thread