Forum shows a perfect example of the Left's naivety - global warming etc.

Stupidity about Global Warming
or
Man Made Global Warming.

Thank you. Lefties tend to mix those terms.


There is no denying storms are getting meaner and global warming has occurred.
Is it out of ordinary cycles within the last 1000 years? No!
Ref. The Little Warm Up,it occurred before The Little Ice Age.

Remember all that Antarctic glacier melting. Now they found flowing rivers active under the Antarctic ice encouraging the glacier along.
It would take Global Warming from the inside, like a magma plume, to produce that effect.
Oh what could I have done to provoke those flowing rivers under Antarctic ice? I refuse to feel so insignificant not to take responsibility.

Ideas ?


Moi
I am not of the Right, or the Left.
I am a Progressive/Populist.

 

That was the point of the thread.

Your lack of anything substantial and not seeing that dissapoints me

 

Wow, the OP has only proven two things with their thread; that they don't have all the facts and still have a whole lot to learn.

 

No, you're asserting that people that listen to the majority of scientists on the issue are, indeed, idiots because they think they know what they're talking about. Here's where your assessment falls apart. No one, that I know of, claims to be a scientist of the caliber necessary to debunk nor validate claims of global warming. That's where the experts come in. Your analogy of Payton Manning asserted that readers would suddenly know everything there is about football and about why Payton ends up in playoffs all the time and will be as practiced in football and as athletic and think like him. This is a stupid assertion. No one claims that. However, if there's 95% of articles saying that manning is a football genius and those articles are written by veteran sports writers who know football inside and out, well, I would say 'they know what they're talking about, the consensus agrees that Payton Manning is a superstar football genius, so I guess he must be one.' I don't know (*)(*)(*)(*) about football, but if I read that 95% of football experts agreed he's the best, why would I to side with the 5% who disagree knowing nothing about football?

 

We already know climate change occurs; we should be discovering more perfect knowledge of structures, such that we can inhabit any place on Earth regardless of climate change.

 

No, you're asserting that people that listen to the majority of scientists on the issue are, indeed, idiots because they think they know what they're talking about.

That wasn't my point. I said believing the scientists is perfectly rational, that's what I do.

No need to write a long paragraph if you're misreading lol....

 

In science there is something called the scientific method. In this method a fact is only established when it is 100% proven. If it is not 100% proven it is supposed to be considered a theory. What is happening with man made global warming is that it has substituted proving and replaced it with a popular vote. Science fact is not supposed to be opinion.

What is a real science fact is that the earth over the course of its existence has had a constantly shifting and changing temperature. To assign todays temperature to man is folly. There are lots of scientists making whole careers off of government grants of money and if they all came to the conclusion that it was not clear that man was in any way the source of change to the earth temperature, the money would be cut off and they would all have to seek out a new source of work and money. They are all keeping the gravy train going.

 

Apparently the tone of your OP was misunderstood.

 

Climate Change is very real. Man-made global warming is a theory. The trick was that global warming was shifted to mean climate change so once it was realized that its impossible to prove man is causing any significant portion of change, everyone supporting it just said, "LOOK, we knew it all along..." It was a brilliant moving of the goal posts.

"Man is causing the climate to change!!!!"

How much is man's fault? Thought it was global warming?

Its just climate change. It was always climate change.

How much are we changing?

The earth has changed temperature the past few 100 years.

What kind of effect?

Don't know, but its our fault! We burn oil and oil is bad.

Who's fault again?

Man!!!

How much is man's fault?

A lot!!!

How much exactly?

Its enough that we're causing the change!

How much change?

A lot!!!

What's a lot?

....and around and around we go, because it can't be proved. The Earth warmed and cooled many times before us and will after us. Just because its changing currently doesn't mean its ALL our fault.

 

Yes, misunderstood by you lol

 

Derp what I just said. Derpity derp.

 

Actually there is pretty definite and convincing proof that man is causing

What is missing is any alternative explanation for climate change other than "It just does"

- - - Updated - - -

Haven't read any of the science have you?? The research is out there. It is very easy to find and it is GOOD research

 

Focus on the thread topic, not each other. If unable to post in a civil manner, leave the thread.

 

Because to not even consider the claims of the 5% is the antithesis of actual science. Science, real, actual science, does not proceed from consensus, it proceeds from a cycle of observation and experimentation. At any point, a new experiment could debunk 99.99% of experts in a field. If someone does an experiment tomarrow that debunks the notion that CO2 has anything to do with global warming, then those 95% would simply be wrong. So someone interested in actual critical thinking would look at the claims, then the data, and then the experts' interpretation on both sides, and choose the answer that fits the data. Someone wishing to stroke their own ego would look for the interpretation that the majority believe in, believe that, and then tell the world how scientific they are. They aren't scientific, they're doing the same thing people have always done, believe what the majority of people in their era believed. Had the same Times readers been alive in 1200, they'd be convinced that the sun revolves around the Earth, that the universe was created in 4004 BC, and that Jews ate babies on Yom Kippur.

I believe in global warming, I believe that humans have a hand in it (though I think it's actually caused by a combination of things, including sunspots). But this isn't about "believing", either the facts support the conclusion or they do not.

 

What a stupid, defensive, prejudicial and ignorant post from someone who evidently never saw the inside of a university! Envious? Clearly.
Do you not understand that universities attract students from all political points of view?

 

Nonsense. In the scientific method the concept of 'proof' does not exist. A 'fact' in scientific theory is simply a consensus of opinion among researchers which can be modified as knowledge increases. Thus the nature of the 'fact' changes as we learn more and challenge the accepted norm. It was once a 'fact' that the Sun went around the Earth.

 

But when almost all those who study a subject agree - biologists with evolution, for instance - it is a pretty fair indication that you have to discover some very, very convincing evidence to prove them wrong. American ranters trying to argue with climatologists are like cows trying to change weather.

 

Of course consensus is a major component of science. We have peer review for precisely that reason. A consensus among a group of scientists will agree, or disagree, as and when a scientific paper is published (in 'Nature'), and science thus progresses. Peer review (consensus of agreement or disagreement), is of fundamental importance to scientific research and the scientific method.

 

And then they try to argue that their 'University of Life' education is the more valid because it snowed heavily, and there's their argument against AGW. What many fail to understand that a 'theory' in science is as far from a 'guess' as you can get.

 

Peer review is a part of science, but the thing that they're looking for is more about the validity of the experiment done. In other words, is the sample size large enough, is the statistical method valid, is the method repeatable, did the experiment actually test the hypothesis. That's not the same thing as what most people are talking about with "consensus", which is more or less that the majority of people believe in that idea. That's not science, that's peer pressure. And even then, a groundbreaking study that challenges what people believe can and does get published, because the experiment shows that the older idea is just plain wrong. It's a bit harder to publish something like that, but if the method and the statistics are sound, it will be published.

But that's also the reason that you cannot ignore the 5% of contrary arguments in those journals -- they were published because they were valid, and that means that the investigation is ongoing.

 

But no one can prove how much. Does it make sense? Sure, it sounds nice. I buy it. What I don't buy is that if the US cuts oil production by X amount, suddenly our environment will just get better, which is just a big sell job. If the US went off oil completely tomorrow, it won't do squat as along as China and India are pumping without any regard to all the environmental safety precautions we take. There's no one to tell them otherwise and little way to prove what they are or aren't doing. For the US to spend ourselves into oblivion when other countries truly don't give a sh!t is just, well, pointless. Our best bet is to just develop tech to distance ourselves from the ME and hopefully sell the tech to others to make A LOT of money. But some utter psychos in DC pushing carbon credits need to be put into a grave frankly, because they must be getting paid by other nations to mention such insanity. Talk about traitors to our country. They are deliberately trying to sabotage us.

Lets not mention anyone in Washington telling anyone else to cut back, or conserve while they live in homes and own private jets/yachts that use more energy than some small towns. They need to get slapped for uttering such hypocrisy.

 

Actually they can but what is frustrating is few denialists will actually LOOK and I mean really LOOK at the evidence - they won't discuss it because they will not even entertain the possibility that they might be wrong

Believing in conspiracy theories is so much easier for the hard of thinking

So what part of climate change are you denying?

That CO2 is rising?

That Co2 affects global temperature?

That there is any change at all??

 

And I will GLEEFULLLY and CHEERFULLY read any article you can find that uses a scientifically sound research to disprove the body of knowledge existent on climate change

The conspiracy theory that "the contrary research does not get published" is complete crap because there are ways of getting things published and brought to the attention of the main body of scientists - and I mean the every day Joe posting on these sites. They HAVE been listening - look at the stir Steve McIntyre made over temperature measurements.

I could cite paper after paper that has caused a re-think of current understanding of climate change - some has been in minor details some have been in how the impacts will occur but NONE deny the basic facts

Man is producing a @#$@# load of CO2 and that CO2 is affecting the temperature of our planet

 

Excellent, but I think you're ignoring the essence of the conservative's position on AGW. The bottom line-and few will admit to this-is that they're terrified that any attempt at addressing the problem will negatively impact their pockets. Hence their antipathy. Money is their God, and screw the planet because it has always taken care of itself, and therefore it always will...

 

Conservatives are by far the least educated people in America who think they know everything. There are very few educated conservatives. Most educated "Republicans" are moderates and would never dream of acting like the conservatives on this forum or in politics right now. The current group of Republicans defy education and are 100% an ideological cult.