Where is Al Gore and the global warming people now?
- Thread starter Chris884MU
- Start date
So rifle you mean like how the media blames every storm on global warming?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
i don't know enough about global warming to have an opinion either way. But, I do know what the arguments are for those who support it. The original post does nothing to damage that opinion and is arguing against something global warming theorists never argued.
It's the fallacy fallacy. The original poster may be correct in his stance on global warming. But his jab at gore and his side shows he doesn't know what he is talking about because a recent cold weather pattern has nothing to do with arguments presented by global warming theorists.
It's the same thing I have stated on here for years. The opinions of people on here may very well be correct or end up being true. But, the lack of logical, consistent, and coherent arguments should be called out.
Th me same thing happened on the main board two weeks ago. A guy was trying to argue that C-USA was as good as the AAC. Regardless of the veracity (or lack thereof in my eyes) of his comment, his arguments were poorly constructed, lacked consistency, and we're illogical.
It would be like me arguing to keeper that his God doesn't exist because a 5 year old boy was killed in a car accident. That does nothing to hurt keep's argument because he never used it in his claim that his God does exist.
It's the fallacy fallacy. The original poster may be correct in his stance on global warming. But his jab at gore and his side shows he doesn't know what he is talking about because a recent cold weather pattern has nothing to do with arguments presented by global warming theorists.
It's the same thing I have stated on here for years. The opinions of people on here may very well be correct or end up being true. But, the lack of logical, consistent, and coherent arguments should be called out.
Th me same thing happened on the main board two weeks ago. A guy was trying to argue that C-USA was as good as the AAC. Regardless of the veracity (or lack thereof in my eyes) of his comment, his arguments were poorly constructed, lacked consistency, and we're illogical.
It would be like me arguing to keeper that his God doesn't exist because a 5 year old boy was killed in a car accident. That does nothing to hurt keep's argument because he never used it in his claim that his God does exist.
It only changed because the propaganda machine realized the phrase "Global Warming" became untenable.
Like anything else the powers that be like to use things like this to scare up money.
Imagine if we would have had the weather channel, social media, and billions of government research available during the dust bowl years.
Um, except for a crazy one week pattern of lake effect snow and an above average number of Nor'easters (which actually require warmth to form) this has been a rather average winter, and will probably have a slightly above average temperature for most locations when it is all said and done.
Remember that time in the Earth's history when the climate was constant and never changed? Those were the days...
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Yeah, it'd have been awful if people would have understood what caused the dust bowl and not done those things.
And like I've explained every time you bring up this absolutely silly argument, the climate didn't change magically. It changed because the environmental influences changed. A good example would be releasing millions of years worth of carbon in under 200 years.
The environment is without a doubt getting warmer. The term Global Warming is still accurate. You are correct that the term global climate change was at least partially coined because the phrase was confusing to the uneducated masses such as yourself.
I seldom enter these debates because no distinction is ever made whether a person is arguing against global warming or anthropogenic global warming. There's an important distinction between the two. Global warming is a reality. Even though the rate of increase has slowed over the last decade, the earth is measurably getting warmer. You can't just take land surface temperatures into consideration, but ocean temperatures have increased rapidly during the same decade that the warming has slowed. Measuring rising temperatures can't really be argued. Maybe that all reverses itself. Who knows? But you can't deny the earth is heating up. A cold winter in Iowa doesn't change that.
Now...are the causes of rising temperatures anthropogenic in nature? An overwhelming number of scientist believe that it can be directly linked to man's activity. I personally believe the juries out because of the complex nature of our climate system. I don't think we fully understand it yet. But it's obvious to me that once again the side you fall on and argue is linked not to a careful evaluation of the information available, but by your already held political beliefs. If absolute ideological thinking wasn't guiding your beliefs we wouldn't see this issue fall along party lines. Both conservatives and liberals are thinking with their politics instead of a fair evaluation of the available information. Given the possible consequences of being wrong, not proceeding cautiously on the issue is frightening.
If ever there was an issue you need to unshackle yourself from your political beliefs, this is one of them. Don't research the issue with confirmation bias, look at the information objectively. I say that knowing that most people are incapable of doing so. That's sad to me. It's why I hate politics.
For those of you who have argued that this is just a bunch of scientist who are protecting funding sources, that is the most patently absurd argument I've ever heard. First off, the notion that the majority of scientist who represent hundreds of nations, interests, areas of specialization (with most getting no direct earmarked climate study monies), and are ego driven human beings, to think they could somehow come together in a mass conspiracy to keep the money flowing...well...like I said, absurd.
But let's humor that argument. Do you really believe that the deniers aren't just as prone to follow the money? Read this article linked below. One of the few scientific deniers received over a million dollars from the oil industry. Both sides are guilty of being influenced. That's why, again, you have to remove preconceived ideology from your influence on this issue.
My personal opinion? I believe the earth is in a period of warming. The majority of scientist believe that it can be attributed to man's activity. I have to take that seriously even though I'm not totally convinced that we posseess a total understanding of our climate system. So I hold out judgement on anthropogenic causes. But you damn sure better believe I'm for erring on the side of caution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0
Now...are the causes of rising temperatures anthropogenic in nature? An overwhelming number of scientist believe that it can be directly linked to man's activity. I personally believe the juries out because of the complex nature of our climate system. I don't think we fully understand it yet. But it's obvious to me that once again the side you fall on and argue is linked not to a careful evaluation of the information available, but by your already held political beliefs. If absolute ideological thinking wasn't guiding your beliefs we wouldn't see this issue fall along party lines. Both conservatives and liberals are thinking with their politics instead of a fair evaluation of the available information. Given the possible consequences of being wrong, not proceeding cautiously on the issue is frightening.
If ever there was an issue you need to unshackle yourself from your political beliefs, this is one of them. Don't research the issue with confirmation bias, look at the information objectively. I say that knowing that most people are incapable of doing so. That's sad to me. It's why I hate politics.
For those of you who have argued that this is just a bunch of scientist who are protecting funding sources, that is the most patently absurd argument I've ever heard. First off, the notion that the majority of scientist who represent hundreds of nations, interests, areas of specialization (with most getting no direct earmarked climate study monies), and are ego driven human beings, to think they could somehow come together in a mass conspiracy to keep the money flowing...well...like I said, absurd.
But let's humor that argument. Do you really believe that the deniers aren't just as prone to follow the money? Read this article linked below. One of the few scientific deniers received over a million dollars from the oil industry. Both sides are guilty of being influenced. That's why, again, you have to remove preconceived ideology from your influence on this issue.
My personal opinion? I believe the earth is in a period of warming. The majority of scientist believe that it can be attributed to man's activity. I have to take that seriously even though I'm not totally convinced that we posseess a total understanding of our climate system. So I hold out judgement on anthropogenic causes. But you damn sure better believe I'm for erring on the side of caution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0
The problem I have with "climate change" is that it's become a lazy, ubiquitous term that people use to insult folks who don't fall lockstep with their ideology. I'm all for clean coal tech, solar, wind, water & whatever environmentally friendly technology we can develop. I'm also for protecting the environment, recycling, land reclamation, & I've volunteered to do beach & riverbank cleanups because my whole life I've either lived near a river or a beach. As a resident of WV, it's downright embarrassing to be rafting on the Gauley or New & see trash in our waters or on the banks. But because I don't buy argument that we're the major culprit in weather change, I'm somehow the problem with the environment - which is how a lot of folks are being made to feel.
I feel like folks (especially college age) would rather be hashtag activists & pound their chest on social media than go out & do something that can actually make a difference. 99.99% of those people will never be in a position to do anything about "climate change." If you're response is, "well they can write their congressman & make demands", that's noble, but be honest, do you think they are?
I feel like folks (especially college age) would rather be hashtag activists & pound their chest on social media than go out & do something that can actually make a difference. 99.99% of those people will never be in a position to do anything about "climate change." If you're response is, "well they can write their congressman & make demands", that's noble, but be honest, do you think they are?
The notion that we are the cause of climate change/global warming stems from the same liberal arrogance of knowing what is best for everyone. It is the self- inflated idea that man is more important than he really is.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I don't know, we're putting a shitload of something that we know holds heat in the earths atmosphere into the atmosphere, but who are we to say that putting something that holds heat in the atmosphere will hold heat in the atmosphere.
Well since Methane is the second highest contributor to greenhouse gasses I am doing my best by destroying the domestic animal food sources.
Is the climate changing? Yeah are we 100% responsible? No, is there anything we can do about it? Not unless china ceases to exist.
My problem with the entire man made climate change crowd is their flat out holier than thou attitude that what they say is gospel. If you have any disagreeing research the you are ostracized, can't get funding etc. I'm not talking about people that deny climate change, I'm talking about the guys that are questioning why reporting station temperatures were arbitrarily increased or the guys that question the reliability of climate change models.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
My problem with the entire man made climate change crowd is their flat out holier than thou attitude that what they say is gospel. If you have any disagreeing research the you are ostracized, can't get funding etc. I'm not talking about people that deny climate change, I'm talking about the guys that are questioning why reporting station temperatures were arbitrarily increased or the guys that question the reliability of climate change models.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I'll be honest. It doesn't matter to me if it's happening or not, because the Dems' solutions to this hypothetical problem are worse than if the whole planet was a ball of fire.
Give me liberty.
And you have articles from daily kos ny times etc calling him out, yet you never see articles about others getting funding from Tom steer George soros etc. and that is my point.
I thought your point was that you could not get funding if you have research disagreeing with climate change/global warming. Are you saying that your point is that you do not see articles on those who write papers/studies supporting climate change/global warming and receive funding fro George Soros?
And so that no one misinterprets my position, scientist are guilty of allowing political ideology influence their presentation of global warming information as well. Or better yet, many of the journals that present the information pander to a liberal audience who have been convinced that theirs is the enlightened point of view and conservatives are Neanderthals and idiots. They're right about conservatives being idiots. But so are they. Anyone who allows themself to be invested in a certain outcome before the score is settled doesn't serve science. Including scientist.
I should clarify I little better. You don't get the anywhere near the amount of funding, and it has to come from other sources. When you get money from other sources then you get crapped on with articles from the ny times etc abou where your funding comes from
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
The issue comes back to things like the article that Keep posted the other day that it has been discovered that they have altered basic historical temperature data. A lot of the "overwhelming scientific community agreement" begins with the same base data. Of course if you can alter that basic base data then a lot of really smart, unbiased people will come to the same unbiased result.
Is it getting hotter? Probably. Would it have gotten hotter if man had died out 1,000 years ago? Probably, at least that's my opinion. There have just been too many extreme cycles in weather over the history of this planet, sans man, to convince me that we're that impactful.
Is it getting hotter? Probably. Would it have gotten hotter if man had died out 1,000 years ago? Probably, at least that's my opinion. There have just been too many extreme cycles in weather over the history of this planet, sans man, to convince me that we're that impactful.
Global Warming/Climate change: the new warped religion created by individuals that are just as dangerous as the infallible bible thumping believers.
When I posted this I admit I was hacked off for having to shovel snow with a bad back. My thoughts have been really surmised well by Herdfan29. Climate change is happening...no argument here. But the evidence used to support the notion that man is primary responsible has more holes than Clyde's machine gunned car. A few things:
- In the 1970;s when the earth was supposedly cooling all the talk was another ice age. In 40 years we went from being on course for an ice age to on course for drowning do to warming/rising oceans. 40 years in climate science is a drop in bucket in time since global temp have supposedly only been kept for less than a century in the civilized world.
- Weather extremes have happened throughout history and can just as easily be traced to changing wind patterns and ocean currents. Oh and Raoul many areas broke temp lows for last 50 years so it wasn't just anecdotal.
- Ice caps: while the northern caps have gone through a period of pretty heavy receding, the southern polls are actually at an all time high in ice density. Even the northern caps over last couple of years stop receding and started adding ice.
- There is little proof as to where all that carbon is actually going. We all know that trees/plants eat carbon dioxide. It makes sense to me that an abundance of carbon in air would also lead to higher levels of forestation and vegetation assuming the world is getting the same amount of rainfall. And if that is so, isn't that a good thing?
- World population growth has been relatively steady as far as I can recall, but don't forget that the world surface is stil covered 71% by water. that doesn't include lakes, rivers, ice caps etc etc. Of the 29% of land...once you take out desert, polar, land used for agriculture and other land that generates little to no carbon footprint it has been estimated that human beings dominate about as little as 1% of the earth's surface.
- There is one scientist who makes a logical argument for erosion of ozone etc and has a meausurement to has been sparingly taken to prove it. I can't think of his name but it actually makes sense. But again there is no proof of what degree man is responsible.
- The earth is resilient and adaptive for a variety of reasons. The makeup of the solar system and changes to it could explain many of the earths systems and changes. For anyone to proclaim man is or is not responsible with any degree of certainty is fooling themselves, but to me there is much more to counter the argument of man made climate change than support it.
- Finally, as a Christian, I believe what the bible says essentialy that after the flood of Noah's time that God would not let man destroy himself. So, while I agree we should do everything possible to take care of the planet, I have zero worry that the whole things ends by climate change, meteors etc. On the other hand, there is a much greater chance the world will end when the decsendents of Mohammad gain control of the world. The end will be marked by a time when if you don't take sign of the beast you will be beheaded/killed. Maybe it takes 1000 years...who knows. But at the time when evil trumps good on earth, Christ will return
- In the 1970;s when the earth was supposedly cooling all the talk was another ice age. In 40 years we went from being on course for an ice age to on course for drowning do to warming/rising oceans. 40 years in climate science is a drop in bucket in time since global temp have supposedly only been kept for less than a century in the civilized world.
- Weather extremes have happened throughout history and can just as easily be traced to changing wind patterns and ocean currents. Oh and Raoul many areas broke temp lows for last 50 years so it wasn't just anecdotal.
- Ice caps: while the northern caps have gone through a period of pretty heavy receding, the southern polls are actually at an all time high in ice density. Even the northern caps over last couple of years stop receding and started adding ice.
- There is little proof as to where all that carbon is actually going. We all know that trees/plants eat carbon dioxide. It makes sense to me that an abundance of carbon in air would also lead to higher levels of forestation and vegetation assuming the world is getting the same amount of rainfall. And if that is so, isn't that a good thing?
- World population growth has been relatively steady as far as I can recall, but don't forget that the world surface is stil covered 71% by water. that doesn't include lakes, rivers, ice caps etc etc. Of the 29% of land...once you take out desert, polar, land used for agriculture and other land that generates little to no carbon footprint it has been estimated that human beings dominate about as little as 1% of the earth's surface.
- There is one scientist who makes a logical argument for erosion of ozone etc and has a meausurement to has been sparingly taken to prove it. I can't think of his name but it actually makes sense. But again there is no proof of what degree man is responsible.
- The earth is resilient and adaptive for a variety of reasons. The makeup of the solar system and changes to it could explain many of the earths systems and changes. For anyone to proclaim man is or is not responsible with any degree of certainty is fooling themselves, but to me there is much more to counter the argument of man made climate change than support it.
- Finally, as a Christian, I believe what the bible says essentialy that after the flood of Noah's time that God would not let man destroy himself. So, while I agree we should do everything possible to take care of the planet, I have zero worry that the whole things ends by climate change, meteors etc. On the other hand, there is a much greater chance the world will end when the decsendents of Mohammad gain control of the world. The end will be marked by a time when if you don't take sign of the beast you will be beheaded/killed. Maybe it takes 1000 years...who knows. But at the time when evil trumps good on earth, Christ will return
