boyst Posted January 15, 2018 Share Posted January 15, 2018 It's like 200° in Australia fwiw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 AN INCONVENIENT STUDY: New Study Just Threw Cold Water On Worst-Case Global Warming Scenarios. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 10 hours ago, B-Man said: AN INCONVENIENT STUDY: New Study Just Threw Cold Water On Worst-Case Global Warming Scenarios. . "The study's best estimate is that global temperatures will change by 2.8 ºC (5 ºF) by 2100." That's still very significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallie Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 On 1/11/2018 at 6:16 AM, /dev/null said: The people who vote for them Oh yeah, what he said!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 21 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said: "The study's best estimate is that global temperatures will change by 2.8 ºC (5 ºF) by 2100." That's still very significant. They are often significantly wrong about the temperature 12 hours into the future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, row_33 said: They are often significantly wrong about the temperature 12 hours into the future But in this case, there's consensus - which we all know makes it settled science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 Do they have a museum showing the empty concentrated orange juice tins they used to measure rainfall until 1960? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 29 minutes ago, row_33 said: They are often significantly wrong about the temperature 12 hours into the future local weather : gorgonzola cheese :: climate : brie time baby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Cugalabanza said: local weather : gorgonzola cheese :: climate : brie time baby Stinks of a big cheese fart they have no real clue with any degree of honest scientific integrity what will happen tomorrow and they scream about 49 years from now what a total farce It’s metaphysics, not hard science. Edited January 19, 2018 by row_33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, row_33 said: Stinks of a big cheese fart they have no real clue with any degree of honest scientific integrity what will happen tomorrow and they scream about 49 years from now what a total farce It’s metaphysics, not hard science. Even the source that B-Man linked just a few posts ago--that was intended to debunk this global warming business--confirms a global temp increase of 4 - 6 ºF by the end of the century. It seems the case that our planet is more resilient than some alarmists (and many scientists) had initially estimated. That's a good thing and I'm glad to hear it. However, there is definitely something very real and very significant going on. Our climate is warming. It's true that it's impossible to project with certainty, but global temps are rising for sure. You can continue to cherry pick examples of bad science here and there and it's true that there are people on the left who act like idiots on this topic. But the truth remains, that our planet is gradually warming and that there will be serious consequences for future generations. Anyone who still stands in denial of this is simply blinded by ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 Aren't most people somewhere in between the change deniers and the doomsday folks regarding Global Climate Change? I mean, I hate hearing the stupid term "climate deniers" or "Global warming." They are both equally stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 9 minutes ago, Paulus said: Aren't most people somewhere in between the change deniers and the doomsday folks regarding Global Climate Change? Probably. But I'd say most of the posters in this forum are firmly in the denier category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 13 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said: Probably. But I'd say most of the posters in this forum are firmly in the denier category. It does tend to seem like if someone even questions a doomsday report they are call "deniers," pejoratively. I mean, do the folks here deny smog and its effects on the climate in the area? !@#$ yeah, that **** changes the climate in the area. It is inarguable. So, is the fact that the climate is constantly changing. IDK, I think there are the vocal 5% on the extreme of each side of the issue, and all we hear are those folks making 99% of the noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 8 minutes ago, Paulus said: It does tend to seem like if someone even questions a doomsday report they are call "deniers," pejoratively. I mean, do the folks here deny smog and its effects on the climate in the area? !@#$ yeah, that **** changes the climate in the area. It is inarguable. So, is the fact that the climate is constantly changing. IDK, I think there are the vocal 5% on the extreme of each side of the issue, and all we hear are those folks making 99% of the noise. The dialogue is hopeless because it's been politicized to the point where neither "side" will listen to the other, and almost nobody involved in the shouting match understands anything about climate science. It doesn't seem to occur to many people that maybe the earth has warming and cooling periods (like when we had the freaking ice ages) that cycle on their own, nor do they seem to think that computer models can be inaccurate or incorrect. And the big one - science is not determined or defined via consensus. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, Azalin said: It doesn't seem to occur to many people that maybe the earth has warming and cooling periods (like when we had the freaking ice ages) that cycle on their own, nor do they seem to think that computer models can be inaccurate or incorrect. If I recall correctly, for the longest time the computer models didn't even account for the sun or its cycles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, Azalin said: The dialogue is hopeless because it's been politicized to the point where neither "side" will listen to the other, and almost nobody involved in the shouting match understands anything about climate science. It doesn't seem to occur to many people that maybe the earth has warming and cooling periods (like when we had the freaking ice ages) that cycle on their own, nor do they seem to think that computer models can be inaccurate or incorrect. And the big one - science is not determined or defined via consensus. Period. Agreed, for the most part. I am just offended by those on both sides who claim smog doesn't exist/affects the climate, or those that claim every "scientist" is correct when they tell stories of doom. Too many people not even trying to think for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 People realize that the climate is changing. They just don't agree that it's worth spending money to try controlling it without more proof. That's why the propaganda from alarmists is that it's "settled science", so they can spend with impunity 16 minutes ago, Koko78 said: If I recall correctly, for the longest time the computer models didn't even account for the sun or its cycles. The computer models didn't account for anything. They basically pumped CO2 in a jar and measured if it got hotter. Then started asking for money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 59 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said: Probably. But I'd say most of the posters in this forum are firmly in the denier category. Half of them are like me. Healthy, scientific skeptics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 31 minutes ago, Koko78 said: If I recall correctly, for the longest time the computer models didn't even account for the sun or its cycles. Can't tax the Sun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Koko78 said: If I recall correctly, for the longest time the computer models didn't even account for the sun or its cycles. That wouldn't surprise me in the least. 29 minutes ago, Paulus said: Agreed, for the most part. I am just offended by those on both sides who claim smog doesn't exist/affects the climate, or those that claim every "scientist" is correct when they tell stories of doom. Too many people not even trying to think for themselves. I don't think it's worth being offended over - ignorance is everywhere, and it'll drive you insane if you let it get to you. But since you appear to have a thing about smog, I would suggest that it's as much a product of weather, climate, and geography as it is of man. Edited January 19, 2018 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts