Chef Jim Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Chad Kroeger thinks you give Canada a bad name. Sure it does, buddy, sure it does. Nothing but healthy skepticism every time this topic comes up, right? The majority of the people in this so called circle jerk are not disputing that the planet heats and cools. There has been a history of cycles. What the naysayers are disputing is how much of it is due to burning of fossil fuels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 The majority of the people in this so called circle jerk are not disputing that the planet heats and cools. There has been a history of cycles. What the naysayers are disputing is how much of it is due to burning of fossil fuels. Based on what exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 (edited) Based on what exactly? Based on the fact we've talked about it here ad nauseum for a few years and I've got a pretty good sense that almost every naysayer is not convinced that global warming is man made. Do most feel that there is climate change? Yes, always has been aways will. I think they also base it on the fact that the most severe climate changes the planet has gone through where before we even arrived here. Edited April 30, 2013 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Based on what exactly? You have it ass backwards. The people claiming man made global warming have a duty to prove it. We skeptics don't have a duty to disprove a proclamation backed by made up science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Based on the fact we've talked about it here adnauseum for a few years and I've got a pretty good sense that almost every naysayer is not convinced that global warming is man made. Do most feel that there is climate change? Yes, always has been aways will. I think they also base it on the fact that the most severe climate changes the planet has gone through where before we even arrived here. So based on the ever-unbiased opinion of the collective mind of PPP@TBD...got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 So based on the ever-unbiased opinion of the collective mind of PPP@TBD...got it. What the !@#$ are you talking about? I've been talking about our little community here and what the naysayers HERE feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 oh yeah, I forgot my other point in my meaningless, but scientifically oriented, opinion: While it is still unclear how much anthropogenic carbon inputs to the atmosphere are affecting global climate, it is unquestionably in our best interest to limit our inputs to the atmosphere. The trick is to do this without putting to much strain on the economy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 You have it ass backwards. The people claiming man made global warming have a duty to prove it. We skeptics don't have a duty to disprove a proclamation backed by made up science. That's fair to a point, but does not mean that it's ok to dismiss supporting evidence using that principle as an excuse. This is why I remain unconvinced, yet open-minded. Threads like this one are decidedly closed-minded and piss me off. All that said, there are good reasons to pursue a course of action that assumes anthropogenic global warming is real. oh yeah, I forgot my other point in my meaningless, but scientifically oriented, opinion: While it is still unclear how much anthropogenic carbon inputs to the atmosphere are affecting global climate, it is unquestionably in our best interest to limit our inputs to the atmosphere. The trick is to do this without putting to much strain on the economy... Oh yeah, but...Bill Nye! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 That's fair to a point, but does not mean that it's ok to dismiss supporting evidence using that principle as an excuse It does when the people who provided the supporting evidence are proven to have manipulated the supporting evidence for their own benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 So based on the ever-unbiased opinion of the collective mind of PPP@TBD...got it. Do you have to always turn the conversation into a clown act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 What the !@#$ are you talking about? I've been talking about our little community here and what the naysayers HERE feel. 'Feel' should not be considered, but unfortunately that's all you get when science and politics collide. It does when the people who provided the supporting evidence are proven to have manipulated the supporting evidence for their own benefit. Emails again? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 'Feel' should not be considered, but unfortunately that's all you get when science and politics collide. Emails again? Really? Who turned global warming into one gigantic political shitstorm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 'Feel' should not be considered, but unfortunately that's all you get when science and politics collide. Funny that science and politics should collide when we're discussing science on a political board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Emails again? Really? The evidence all but shut down any climate change agenda. Period. I'm just, y'know, letting it play out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 The evidence all but shut down any climate change agenda. Period. I'm just, y'know, letting it play out. Well, that's just not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Well, that's just not true. Okay. Tell me. What's the climate change agenda these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 The Earth is roughly 4.54 billion years old. Scientists have been tracking climate change for 16 years, using poor models and cherry picked data, attempting to examine an unknown and unknowable history in order to extract a desired result. The end point of their "scientific examination" has led us on a path that flops so frequently between global warming and global cooling, that in order not to be completely discredited they now refer to it vaugely as "climate change". These same scientists resist scientific rigor by stating, "I won't show you my data, because if I do, you're only going to try and find something wrong with it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 (edited) There are other reasons to legislate against fossil fuels IMO, natural gas excluded. OC election analysis part 2? Yes there are other reasons, and yes those other reasons are contained in my election analysis above. Obama needs what is left of the Environtologist $ for his attempt to save the Senate and win the House in 2014. That's reality, not analysis. He's not going to get any more Big Gay $, because that issue is on hold. He sure as hell isn't going to get any $ from Wall Street. Wall Street makes their living on spotting trends. Which way is Obama trending? That leaves the labor unions as the only other viable source of cash. He has to try and get the Big Green $ now, because he is going to turn around and F them over 6-8 months before the 2014 elections, and approve the Keystone pipline, which is the price Big Labor will charge for its $. Or something like that He can't be asking Big Green and Big Labor for money at the same time. Emails again? Really? 3 things Frenkle: 1. Do you really think the emails are the ONLY source of evidence of idiocy, wrongdoing, and flat out lies from the left, "climate scientists" and their ilk? I assure you there are many more and varied pieces of evidence. They have all been discussed here. In fact, the East Anglian Emails are tired and old...like AL Gore. But put that aside. Do YOU think the emails are the only issue? 2. You might as well tell us now: what are you going to say when, not if, the computer models fail? See: http://www.economist...-and-technology /21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions?zid=313&ah=fe2aac0b11adef572d67aed9273b6e55 3. Citing the link above, what do you expect the "unexplained reason" will be when the models fail? Are you willing to concede, right now, that there has been some "wishful thinking" and not science, included in these "scientific" models, because that is where the grant money is, and, because the agenda, and not the science, has been driving this? 1-3 are serious questions. I am trusting you to answer them seriously, and not acting like the Frenkle we know. Why? Because it's been a while, and I want to see if anything has changed. Edited April 30, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Okay. Tell me. What's the climate change agenda these days? Scientific understanding? The Earth is roughly 4.54 billion years old. Scientists have been tracking climate change for 16 years, using poor models and cherry picked data, attempting to examine an unknown and unknowable history in order to extract a desired result. The end point of their "scientific examination" has led us on a path that flops so frequently between global warming and global cooling, that in order not to be completely discredited they now refer to it vaugely as "climate change". These same scientists resist scientific rigor by stating, "I won't show you my data, because if I do, you're only going to try and find something wrong with it." The Gospel according to Tasker. Amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Oh for the love of Jeebus, not this again! But, since this a subject that gets more political argument than scientific, I suppose I'll play along for a very SHORT time: 1.Carbon dioxide WILL and DOES absorb in the infrared portion of the EM spectrum. This is an indisputable fact of the physical and chemical world. 2. There is no way to definitively prove or disprove anthropogenic effect upon atmospheric CO2, simply because we haven't been studying it long enough. 3. We do not have a good understanding of the natural feedback mechanisms for CO2, and do not know their limits, e.g., the role of the oceans as a sink for carbonate. All of this equates to we don’t know if or how much we are affecting the environment. Anyone tells you different, then DC Tom has a nametag for you. Also, you cannot talk about climate change and separate increasing temperature and global cooling, since they are absolutely linked. Google Thermohaline Circulation and learn about the connections between CO2 – Air Temperature – ice formation/melting– salinity – Global weather patterns if you want to have meaningful discussions on this subject. Anything else is just political BS… Thank you. But you forgot to add "science isn't done by consensus." "Consensus" is politics. And "belief" is religion - if you "believe" in global warming, don't even !@#$ing talk to me. There are other reasons to legislate against fossil fuels IMO, natural gas excluded. Why is natural gas excluded? I didn't realize you are a climate scientist. My bad. I didn't realize you are. I can read a research paper. When you can, then you can disagree with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts