3rdnlng Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 So your dismissing the 99 percent plus of climate scientists who link man made CO2 to climate change? The echo chamber on this thread is defeaning. Back up your statements with something credible or go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Back up your statements with something credible or go away. So what you're saying is that consensus is no longer science?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 So what you're saying is that consensus is no longer science?!? I would say that 99% of the man made climate scientists who are paid by that huckster industry will all agree that man is causing climate change, but I can't back up my claim, so I won't say it. What I will say to all those lemmings is--------prove it. While they are at it they can explain the palm tree fossils in Iceland from many thousands of years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Ok 97 percent. There is really no point in arguing with you guys....you - with your appropriate backgounds have it all figured out and can easily discount the science and math that exists on this subject. Problem for me is I an an engineer and the science is quite simple. Bear in mind that our atmosphere is incredibly thin....by 100,000 feet it is all but gone....20 miles...draw a line from Buffalo to Batavia and point it up.....that is it. So it is pretty easy to see that the enitire humanity burning fossil fuels as fast as they canfor their enitre existance could change that. As far as me going away....why...thought this wasa forum for discussion...don't like poeple who don't agree with you? The thing about the truth is.....it is always true. Your 99% statement is a lie. or should I say lye. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Ok 97 percent. There is really no point in arguing with you guys....you - with your appropriate backgounds have it all figured out and can easily discount the science and math that exists on this subject. Problem for me is I an an engineer and the science is quite simple. Bear in mind that our atmosphere is incredibly thin....by 100,000 feet it is all but gone....20 miles...draw a line from Buffalo to Batavia and point it up.....that is it. So it is pretty easy to see that the enitire humanity burning fossil fuels as fast as they canfor their enitre existance could change that. As far as me going away....why...thought this wasa forum for discussion...don't like poeple who don't agree with you? The thing about the truth is.....it is always true. If humans are really causing global warming why do you, I or anyone else care? Go into detail not some save the poler bears crap.A engineer? Because you design struts you think you can understand climate change and we can't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) Ok 97 percent. There is really no point in arguing with you guys....you - with your appropriate backgounds have it all figured out and can easily discount the science and math that exists on this subject. Problem for me is I an an engineer and the science is quite simple. Bear in mind that our atmosphere is incredibly thin....by 100,000 feet it is all but gone....20 miles...draw a line from Buffalo to Batavia and point it up.....that is it. So it is pretty easy to see that the enitire humanity burning fossil fuels as fast as they canfor their enitre existance could change that. As far as me going away....why...thought this wasa forum for discussion...don't like poeple who don't agree with you? The thing about the truth is.....it is always true. I told you to prove it or go away. All you are doing is talking schit. If you want to discusss something here bring some facts or even theories to the equation. Also, your credibility would improve if you learned to spell. Edited January 4, 2014 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 As far as spelling, I use an Ipad which stinks and I don't have my eyeglasses...shoot the messenger huh? As far as credibility, I have none as I am not a climate scientist...are any of you? if 97 percent of them agree on something and their premise seems plausible...I am going with the 97. The majority here seem to think that their basic premise is wrong. As far as saving polar bears...I made no such claims that we are ruining the planet. Earth has undergone vast and recent temp fluctuations as recently as 15000 years ago where I sit here was under a mile of ice. The earth will survive just fine. I do however think two things about global warming are going to be a bummer. The first is the acidification of the oceans as they absorb CO2...I actually think that might be the biggest aspect no one really talks about. The second factor is this...human population is optimized for the current climate conditions...where we plant food, where we live...etc....as the climate changes this will change and reoptimization is going to be expensive and not unpainful. We have already begun to see the start of this. At the end of the day, this century or whenever...I don't believe there is a thing we can do to change this great experiment...the entire state of humanity is built on fossil fuels...eliminate them and drop your population by 90 percent...at least.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 As far as spelling, I use an Ipad which stinks and I don't have my eyeglasses...shoot the messenger huh? As far as credibility, I have none as I am not a climate scientist...are any of you? if 97 percent of them agree on something and their premise seems plausible...I am going with the 97. The majority here seem to think that their basic premise is wrong. As far as saving polar bears...I made no such claims that we are ruining the planet. Earth has undergone vast and recent temp fluctuations as recently as 15000 years ago where I sit here was under a mile of ice. The earth will survive just fine. I do however think two things about global warming are going to be a bummer. The first is the acidification of the oceans as they absorb CO2...I actually think that might be the biggest aspect no one really talks about. The second factor is this...human population is optimized for the current climate conditions...where we plant food, where we live...etc....as the climate changes this will change and reoptimization is going to be expensive and not unpainful. We have already begun to see the start of this. At the end of the day, this century or whenever...I don't believe there is a thing we can do to change this great experiment...the entire state of humanity is built on fossil fuels...eliminate them and drop your population by 90 percent...at least.... Dude I guess I am in the 3% because I have a Nobel prize in physics and I am not really too worried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Dude I guess I am in the 3% because I have a Nobel prize in physics and I am not really too worried. You mean the no-bell prize in psychosis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 You mean the no-bell prize in psychosis Haters gotta hate. Personally I don't think my discovery was that big a deal but a Nobel prize is a Nobel prize. To get into a little physics for the ice cream man, I will point out his 20 mile line extends upward from every single point on the surface of the planet making the atmosphere quite large in comparison to the surface. Plus the fact that cow farts, which are the main culprit have been happening since before the dinosaurs and we are all still here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Haters gotta hate. Personally I don't think my discovery was that big a deal but a Nobel prize is a Nobel prize. To get into a little physics for the ice cream man, I will point out his 20 mile line extends upward from every single point on the surface of the planet making the atmosphere quite large in comparison to the surface. Plus the fact that cow farts, which are the main culprit have been happening since before the dinosaurs and we are all still here. I think you might be confusing Ice cream men with orderlies, they both wear mainly white but the ice cream men usually have a little bow tie and a hat where as orderlies just have a lot of keys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 As far as spelling, I use an Ipad which stinks and I don't have my eyeglasses...shoot the messenger huh? As far as credibility, I have none as I am not a climate scientist...are any of you? if 97 percent of them agree on something and their premise seems plausible...I am going with the 97. The majority here seem to think that their basic premise is wrong. As far as saving polar bears...I made no such claims that we are ruining the planet. Earth has undergone vast and recent temp fluctuations as recently as 15000 years ago where I sit here was under a mile of ice. The earth will survive just fine. I do however think two things about global warming are going to be a bummer. The first is the acidification of the oceans as they absorb CO2...I actually think that might be the biggest aspect no one really talks about. The second factor is this...human population is optimized for the current climate conditions...where we plant food, where we live...etc....as the climate changes this will change and reoptimization is going to be expensive and not unpainful. We have already begun to see the start of this. At the end of the day, this century or whenever...I don't believe there is a thing we can do to change this great experiment...the entire state of humanity is built on fossil fuels...eliminate them and drop your population by 90 percent...at least.... So what do you suggest we do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 I am on an iPad also. So, here's a link to WattsUpWithThat and a search term of "97": http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=97 On the sites front page is a story about 2013 being the 4th hottest year since satellites began measuring global temps. It's not a question of the earth was warming, but a question of why. Overwhelming evidence is that it's not Co2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 So what do you suggest we do? Whelp, I think we are just another animal living on this planet....and animals have proven to have a planning horizon only as far as their lifetimes. We have 7 billion people on this planet that depend on fossil fuels to survive...to end man made additions of CO 2 to the atmosphere you would have to accept the aspect that this would entail reducing the human population significantly...this would not happen....so - as I said we are in for a great experiment....Climate has changed tremendously and very recently and creatures have evolved to the new conditions...the animal with the most to lose is probably us....clearly if sea levels rise those living close to the oceans are gonna fight and ulitmately move inland....the great breadbasket of our central plains is going to move northward...ski areas are going to go bust...Phoenix might just become too friggin hot to live....things like that....adapt and move on. As I look at it though...I really think the real bummer is the acidificationof the oceans....the lakes in the Adirondack Park went dead...as in NO fish in the 70-80's from acid rain produced by the coal plants west of their location...as a frequent visitor to their one could really see the damage...Losing the oceans on such a scale would be genuinely disasterous....you can already see the this effect on the Pacific Northwest shell industry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Whelp, I think we are just another animal living on this planet....and animals have proven to have a planning horizon only as far as their lifetimes. We have 7 billion people on this planet that depend on fossil fuels to survive...to end man made additions of CO 2 to the atmosphere you would have to accept the aspect that this would entail reducing the human population significantly...this would not happen....so - as I said we are in for a great experiment....Climate has changed tremendously and very recently and creatures have evolved to the new conditions...the animal with the most to lose is probably us....clearly if sea levels rise those living close to the oceans are gonna fight and ulitmately move inland....the great breadbasket of our central plains is going to move northward...ski areas are going to go bust...Phoenix might just become too friggin hot to live....things like that....adapt and move on. As I look at it though...I really think the real bummer is the acidificationof the oceans....the lakes in the Adirondack Park went dead...as in NO fish in the 70-80's from acid rain produced by the coal plants west of their location...as a frequent visitor to their one could really see the damage...Losing the oceans on such a scale would be genuinely disasterous....you can already see the this effect on the Pacific Northwest shell industry... Thank you RE ADK lakes. It's a tragedy. Humans have definitely screwed up the ecology. No one argues that. It's just a matter of how much governments can do to regulate our behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Ok 97 percent. There is really no point in arguing with you guys....you - with your appropriate backgounds have it all figured out and can easily discount the science and math that exists on this subject. Problem for me is I an an engineer and the science is quite simple. Bear in mind that our atmosphere is incredibly thin....by 100,000 feet it is all but gone....20 miles...draw a line from Buffalo to Batavia and point it up.....that is it. So it is pretty easy to see that the enitire humanity burning fossil fuels as fast as they canfor their enitre existance could change that. As far as me going away....why...thought this wasa forum for discussion...don't like poeple who don't agree with you? The thing about the truth is.....it is always true. The thing about "97% agree" is that it's not truth, it's marketing. If you think that's "truth", you must be an awfully ****ty engineer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 5, 2014 Author Share Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) I think it's hilarious that a dude who clearly has little/no idea what our backgrounds are begins by criticizing them. I also think it's hilarious that I've been doing "math and science", quite well, for my entire life now, according to every measurement there is...yet somehow only on this single issue, Global Warming, I'm suddenly incapable of conceiving what is so "simple"? Next, this 97% thing is so dopey. Every time I hear it, I think: Copernicus. Galileo. These are people who went through hell...because they didn't agree with the 97% either. I doubt anybody would dare to question their "science skills". What is the difference between these guys, real scientists, who coincidentally didn't have a political party-->government trough from which they fed(and whose vested interest is in having them keep churning out the "data")... ....and the 97%? Those guys could back up what they were saying. Every day, all the time, and that is the ONLY reason why they weren't executed...by those who called them heretics. The Inquisitors couldn't bring themselves to override all reason completely. In contrast to these guys, the 97%...when confronted with empirical evidence that blows significant holes in their model designs/theories, come up with the lamest of lamedick contingency plans/workarounds/edge cases I've ever seen. To put that in context: I've done work for Utilities/Insurance Companies and the US Government. These environtologists still take the cake for prevarication. Yes, yes, the warming is hiding at the bottom of the ocean = the one place we can't measure 24/7. Or...Global Warming pollution...is masking the effect...of Global Warming pollution. "Scientists" are putting forward these contingencies as a last ditch effort to "secure the bunker" they now live in(and will die in). But yeah, I'm the one with the science problem? No. I've seen this before: this is what happens when the other project/consultant/client antagonist realizes they are losing, and our project/effort is winning. If they don't do/say something, anything, they know: it's over. Who are the people throwing around the invective, and ignoring the data? Who's calling people "deniers"(heretics)? Who are the people attack the posters here... ...rather than providing sound arguments as to why the polar ice cap has gotten bigger, and not disappeared, as they predicted? If we could reanimate Galileo...who would he say reminds him of the Inquisition? Who would he say reminds him of himself? Edited January 5, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 The echo chamber rolls on.....can't believe the scientific community hasn't stumbled on to this thread and apprpriately modifed their views.....November 2013 hottest air temp on record by the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) Ok 97 percent. There is really no point in arguing with you guys.... Not if you can't substantiate such claims, no. Where is the official list of "climate scientists" and a tally of how they voted? And what exactly do they 'agree' on? That humans have some impact on the climate? That's not an unreasonable position, but here's the problem: there's no reasonable consensus on WHAT impact humans might or might not be happening. As you already pointed out, the planet has experienced climate swings severe enough to cause ice ages and subsequent melting of them and those had nothing to do with humans. So obviously the planet is predisposed to massive climate change over time all by itself. Yet now we're supposed to believe that changes that took thousands of years in the past will now take place in 10 and primarily due to humans? And we're supposed to believe this based on a tiny spec of data relative to the planet's lifecycle? That's just silly and naive. The problem is your 'global warming/climate change' movement has been totally corrupted by scare-tactic politicians and carnival hucksters who are merely using it to make themselves rich (Al Gore being the obvious High Priest), and doing so by scaring the common folk with flat out lies and absurd claims (is that Arctic ice almost all gone?). When your cause's #1 spokesman has been proven to be full of sh-- and the only 'solutions' being proposed by politicians are nothing but more money grabs against US taxpayers, how can you still claim it's about science or be surprised when people who aren't lemmings refuse to jump on the bandwagon? And finally, if you aren't prepared to offer a solution, than what's the point of the debate? And the only solution (assuming you believe humans are the problem), is obviously to dramatically reduce the number of humans. And if you're too PC to suggest a solution for that, then you're simply burying your head in the sand anyway. Edited January 5, 2014 by KD in CT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts