Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
  On 1/19/2018 at 2:22 PM, 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.

Expand  

 

They are often significantly wrong about the temperature 12 hours into the future

 

 

 

Posted
  On 1/19/2018 at 2:45 PM, row_33 said:

 

They are often significantly wrong about the temperature 12 hours into the future

 

 

 

Expand  

 

But in this case, there's consensus - which we all know makes it settled science.

Posted

Do they have a museum showing the empty concentrated orange juice tins they used to measure rainfall until 1960?

 

 

 

Posted (edited)
  On 1/19/2018 at 3:15 PM, Cugalabanza said:

 

local weather : gorgonzola cheese  ::  climate : brie time baby

Expand  

 

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 by row_33
Posted
  On 1/19/2018 at 5:21 PM, 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.

 

 

Expand  

 

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.

 

Posted

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. 

Posted
  On 1/19/2018 at 8:20 PM, Paulus said:

Aren't most people somewhere in between the change deniers and the doomsday folks regarding Global Climate Change?

 

Expand  

 

Probably.  But I'd say most of the posters in this forum are firmly in the denier category.

Posted
  On 1/19/2018 at 8:30 PM, Cugalabanza said:

 

Probably.  But I'd say most of the posters in this forum are firmly in the denier category.

Expand  

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.  

Posted
  On 1/19/2018 at 8:54 PM, 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.  

Expand  

 

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.

Posted
  On 1/19/2018 at 9:09 PM, 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.

Expand  

 

If I recall correctly, for the longest time the computer models didn't even account for the sun or its cycles.

Posted
  On 1/19/2018 at 9:09 PM, 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.

Expand  

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. 

Posted

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

 

  On 1/19/2018 at 9:12 PM, Koko78 said:

 

If I recall correctly, for the longest time the computer models didn't even account for the sun or its cycles.

Expand  

 

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.

Posted (edited)
  On 1/19/2018 at 9:12 PM, Koko78 said:

 

If I recall correctly, for the longest time the computer models didn't even account for the sun or its cycles.

Expand  

 

That wouldn't surprise me in the least.

 

  On 1/19/2018 at 9:18 PM, 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. 

Expand  

 

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 by Azalin
×
×
  • Create New...