Climate Scientists Say, "Oops"
- Thread starter wvkeeper(HN)
- Start date
Read the article (Keeper has, he just likes to troll this way)...shit is still warming, just not at the very accelerated end of the accepted range.
I'd be mad if my Maserati only did 150 instead of 185, but that's still pretty fast.
I'd be mad if my Maserati only did 150 instead of 185, but that's still pretty fast.
Science...unlike ideology...corrects itself when they are wrong. Something about the truth meaning more than the agenda.
Just like religion/ideology....science corrects itself when the money starts flowing in a different direction.
Sure. It's a worldwide conspiracy perpetrated by more than 90% of the world scientist whose funding sources differ by country. It's pretty clever really. Over 50 years of research...all fabricated in order continue funding. Consensus across international borders with different funding sources. Negligible dissent from scientist not attached to the energy industry. I mean...these guys are really good. Quite possibly the single greatest conspiracy cover up in history.
I can't wait to see if his answer is any different from the twenty other times he's been asked this question.
The fact that my father in law mines coal. Put him on the unemployment line and all will be resolved.
Well, me neither. hahaaaaaa
Global warming is the biggest money grab and overreaction probably in the history of mankind.
I am freezing my nads off. Oh wait, it is winter time. Just like every other winter time.
No one deserves strong opinions without strong knowledge. Tell me a little about the effort you've made educating yourself in this issue.
I read some of the same articles and listen to the same interviews that you do. I have sit through lectures on from PHD's and researches actually. Interesting, but I am listen to the other side as well.
I also know that money that flows to their professors and researcher schools and facilities. Sometimes you do have to follow the money. They have to keep the research going and sometimes ring alarm bells to get $$$$$$. Sometimes I benefit from that even when I don't agree with it.
I don't doubt cyclical global warming. I don't doubt we go through periods of colder temps and warmer temps. What I do doubt is man's total effect on it.
So you say that you've listened to PhD lectures and research. And although you find it interesting you say you listen to the other side as well. If I read that correctly, you are saying that the PhD lectures and research back anthropogenic GW and then you choose to believe the other side.
Right now an overwhelming percentage of research by those who study the issue support the fact that man is screwing the pooch. According to NASA, 97% of the peer reviewed research supports MMGW...
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
So you find it interesting but choose to believe the small percentage, many if not most with links to the energy industry?
Then you go on to state that this consensus is reached due to a money grab. Yet there has been no significant evidence uncovered to support your assertion. I'd be interested in the articles, research, held positions by PhD level scientist or investigative reporters that you've read to support your belief. Links?
So to sum up your opinion, you are ignoring the overwhelming majority in support of the minuscule dissenting evidence because of a conspiracy that you offer no evidence.
Got it.
Right now an overwhelming percentage of research by those who study the issue support the fact that man is screwing the pooch. According to NASA, 97% of the peer reviewed research supports MMGW...
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
So you find it interesting but choose to believe the small percentage, many if not most with links to the energy industry?
Then you go on to state that this consensus is reached due to a money grab. Yet there has been no significant evidence uncovered to support your assertion. I'd be interested in the articles, research, held positions by PhD level scientist or investigative reporters that you've read to support your belief. Links?
So to sum up your opinion, you are ignoring the overwhelming majority in support of the minuscule dissenting evidence because of a conspiracy that you offer no evidence.
Got it.
I think what he's saying is that it's HOT in the summer time, and COLD in the winter time, just like it's been since Columbus discovered America. I think he's also saying he doesn't care if the average temperature has increased by 1/100th of a degree during the last 834 years.
But yet, last week it was widely reported in scientific circles that the hole in the ozone layer has decreased greatly in size from several years ago.
Pfffft. I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I believe in repeatable "cycles". Money, debt, markets, consumers, economic, technology, weather, climate, evolution, education, science, information, news, religious, politics...….
I also believe in the emotions that drive those cycles.....fear and greed. (The only 2 things humans really have the power to control or change.)
Raoul beat me to it, but huh? The ozone issue was from the 1980s and was a result of the use of CFC in products. It was banned worldwide and the hole has been mending ever since. The ozone is presently smaller than its ever been since the ban.
What you're offering as evidence to support your held position actually does the opposite. It shows that effort by man can actually solve the problem. But as Raoul said...a whole nutter issue.
Yes it is, but I was offering that as a point that man can reverse the damage if a concerted effort is made. I believe a lot of the climate change is from the earth itself and going through cycles. Yes, man has played a role to a degree. jmho
We are allowed to have different opinions. Again, I said we are in a warming period. Where we disagree is what the cause of this is. What I find funny, is all the alarmist and basically climate change amublance chasers run around going OMG look at the hurricanes now. What they don't talk about is the 20 year or so pattern where there weren't major hurricanes or they don't about bad storms in the 1960's or other years where there were similar patterns. Are the hurricanes worse or is the poopulaton near the coast more now and there is a bigger problem when they hit? They don't talk about LaNina and ElNino(sp?) years that influence the patterns and those are always present.
I remember the same alarm bells when all these folks were talking about ice ages back in the 70's or 80's.
There is an absolute money trail. If you are a professor at let's say Marshall and you can get a large grant to study global warming. Then, what are you going to do? Ring alarm bells and draw attention to it. If you are at NOAA and you can get money to keep your job or get money for research what are you going to do?
There are certainly a list of scientist and PHD level folks who disagree with the man made causes of global warming. That info is readily available.
Most academic types of I know believe in it. But, they also are pretty much on the left leaning side of most issues.
We just disagree. I am not dumb or uneducated. I just don't believe in all of the hub bub.
The planet changes. Man contributes to those changes. Nothing we do can eliminate our impact, or even significantly lessen it. Population has gone through the roof over the last 100 years. Those people need food, shelter, clothing and other necessities. It takes modern farming and manufacturing techniques to supply all that and transport it around the globe. It takes energy to have those capabilities.
We have a human population that stresses the ability of the planet to support it. That's only going to get worse. Short of a significant event to thin the herd, any solution is just wishful thinking. If you are going to have cattle you need an acre or 2 per cow for grazing. If you put 25 cows on 10 acres they won't have enough to eat.
We have a human population that stresses the ability of the planet to support it. That's only going to get worse. Short of a significant event to thin the herd, any solution is just wishful thinking. If you are going to have cattle you need an acre or 2 per cow for grazing. If you put 25 cows on 10 acres they won't have enough to eat.
Lol no body told me that coal would be eliminated before I turned 60. Had coal been in California they would be mining it like it was world war 'll. Because people in this area are viewed as ignorant cave dwellers we just don't matter to the rest of America. The government should have built plants in WV and Kentucky and use miners out of work to work in the green energy business. They make solar panels and not sure what else they produce. Miners will out work and probably out think the california people who work in that business. The united states discriminates against those who mined coal. Hardly anything or training was ever offered to the miners. In the future they will gladly jump back to using coal when they have a better way of burning coal. Surely scientist will discover a good way to burn coal. What is more important the economy or the environment? I pick the economy with laws protecting the water and soil and air we breath..
You and your coal mining friends should have voted for Hillary. She's the only candidate that offered a plan to do pretty much what you're talking about.
She didn't offer a plan, she offered a concept with no details on execution (which is required for it to be a plan). Any politician can give the ol' chicken in every pot speech to try and get elected.
This sums up your arguments on religion and the environment. You simply cannot remove your personal bias from the topic and look at honestly.
It's why you end up arguing that Earth is only 6000 years old.
I'll take Forbes over you nearly, if not all the time.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ucenergy/2016/11/04/building-on-clintons-plan-to-revitalize-coal-country/#665e70cc1953
There is so much misinformation in this post I really don't have the time right now to address them all. Many of the points have been addressed in the past with definitive evidence and links to studies that directly dispute your statements. The ice age fear from the 70s is one of them. But that's the thing with these types of arguments with ideologically bent people...their statements can be directly disputed and proven wrong, yet six months later there they are again saying the exact same stuff. I'll have some time over the next week and I'll revisit this comment. But I don't know why I bother. Because six months down the road you'll be saying the exact same stuff.
Yeah. Because those studies are never wrong . . . Oh. Wait.
Herdman, you have solved the problem. Apparently the earth's temperature rises in unison with spending on climate change study. To stop the rise we simply need to stop spending money on it. If we did, no one would mention it again.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
saip Mike Green invited to NFL combine. I did not see anyone else
- Latest: raleighherdfan
-
-
