Thank you for your contribution to the conversation. I truly appreciate that you consider me a friend.
How many sheep are still buying global warming?
- Thread starter CU1TruTiger4Life
- Start date
Al Gore is doing the Climate Change crowd no favors. Screams about people reducing their "footprint" while jetting all over the world in his private plane. Buys oceanfront property while claiming that disaster is on the horizon for coastal communities and then generally just being a doofus and clown who makes outrageous claims for attention. Easy to see why his hand wringing and alarmism falls on a lot of deaf ears.
I love that OP's knowledge of global warming seems to be confined to the name of it. Then, taking that wealth of knowledge he makes a snarky post online referring to a sample size of 1 winter. If this was how science was done we would still be treating diseases with leaches.
Basically the definition of a Strawman argument. I'm not sure the examples on the wiki page for the definition of the argument are better.
Whether you think it should or not, Al Gore's hypocrisy and foolishness factor in to some peoples opinions on climate change. He has been the torch bearer, the face of this movement, the Paul Revere racing thru town shouting dire warnings. He has been lauded and celebrated by the climate change movement and his movies/slideshows have been accepted as fact by many on that side. Just odd that he doesn't practice what he preaches nor apparently believe what he espouses. I haven't made up my mind one way or the other, but I can surely see the hypocrisy of Al Gore. Cool profile pic btw. You at a local mud run??
Nothing like posting an ugly chart with falsified information to push a narrative. Just a little research will show that much of the assumed "science" has been adjusted to fit an agenda. The real data on "warming" shows very little change in the last century plus, a hiatus in the last 15-20 year, and a possible cooling trend. None of it shows a correlation to human activities.There’s a difference between climate and temporary weather patterns. The warming of the earth is scientifically documented, with degrees added to the average global temperature over the last century. 16 of the hottest 17 years on record have occurred since 2001. Given, this record is only about 150 years old, but the trend remains.
The poster above is right, in that fluctuations in the average temperature causes erratic weather patterns, such as the cold stretch this winter for the south. The number of violent storms experienced this past summer are also signs of general warming trends. Someone could easily turn this around and ask about the American West, which is currently having one of its warmest and driest winters in a long time.
Global warming is happening. That is not up for debate. The debate is whether or not humans are contributing to climate change, or is the earth simply going through a warming spell that will eventually smooth out.
I am a proponent of environmental responsibility however. We should not be wasteful and pollute, but to believe that much of our activity is driving changes in climate that have happened since the beginning of time is both ignorant and egocentric.
N---
My bad, you said "Given, this record is only about 150 years old, but the trend remains" so I took it literally. WTH
That's bullcrap....my son has a biology degree from Clemson and an MD from MUSC and his wife has a science degree from Clemson....Biologists don't study climatology. Do you think she knows everything about anything scientifically related because she studied Biology?
I think she knows a hell of a lot more about it than most. I also know that virtually every scientific organization in the world which has considered the subject has reached the same conclusion.
Any idiot can adopt a movement and I won't hold a movement responsible for it's idiots. Either side of any debate could basically take up that argument which is why it is considered a logical fallacy.
edit: Yeah that was Spartan Beast in Spartanburg I think. It was really well done, I encourage anyone considering a mud run to think about that one next year. (Skip the super in Atlanta, it sucks. But Asheville does a really fun run as well.)
I am definitely questioning your scinece credentials lol
The data presented were from NASA. Again, I mentioned in a previous post that any data can be manipulated to present a desired result with the addition/deletion of parameters. I’m not disputing that. I do think, however, that NASA is one of the least likely scientific agencies to present biased or falsified information.
The jury is still out on the effect of human activity, but I do believe that the 97%+ of scientists who believe the earth is in a warming pattern are on to something. Also as I mentioned in a previous post, none of the other warming periods occurred during an age of industrialization and globalization, so we’re not exactly operating from the same baseline. Again, just my personal thoughts. I’m open to new information if you present some research that states otherwise.
Would it change your mind if I told you I won the blue ribbon in my 4th and 6th grade science fair as well as back to back class spelling bee championships in 92-93?
I wasn't back on TI yesterday and i really don't have the time to enter into an ongoing debate.
My point was this: the "science" of climate change is far from settled. The very essence of the scientific method is hypothesis, experimentation, analyzing and conclusion. The continued study of climate has become muddied with money and politics as to taint many of the studies. The studies that confirm the governemnet's position get the money. The studies that do not, get no money. Not to mention the fact that public shaming and name calling have entered into the "debate." Just witness this thread for a portion of that.
So if the earth is warming or cooling, so what? Its millions/billions of years old. It goes through natural cooling and warming periods. I don't buy that humans can have that big of an effect on the planet that has been here for that long a time.
If you can answer one question for me though: What exactly is the earth's correct temperature? What is "normal?"
I'll hang up and listen.
The "trendless hockey stick graph" by Mann. Scientists(who support global warming) have attacked Mann's hockey stick graph as phony and a sham and hurts the policy that they are trying to back. Michael Crichton owns Mann.
It’s funny that multi-national corporations with adverse interests to policies reducing human effects on climate change acknowledge its existence, but not these right wingers from the sofas.
Prior to this acknowledgment, many of them had science substantiating it’s existence but funded PR campaigns denying it.
Not to mention, if u put on ur tinfoil hat to try and uncover the big climate change conspiracy based upon the old adage “follow the money” there has clearly been more $ on the line from the energy sector than a group of climate scientists. But these climate change denieri diots can’t even follow the money.
Ok
ok, if you are going to do the "follow the money" thing to question the credibility of scientific analysis backing each side, then you are missing the fact that the energy industry funded "opposition" science as well as PR campaigns, thus funding the analysis against human induced climate change. It has also been proven that many of the company's own research supported human induced climate change...the proverbial smoking gun.
Regardless, I aint great at ciphering but I can make an educated guess that the economic benefit derived by the energy industry from getting the sheeple to believe it doesn't exist is thousands of times greater than the total sum of gov grants dolled out for climate research.
Prior to this acknowledgment, many of them had science substantiating it’s existence but funded PR campaigns denying it.
Not to mention, if u put on ur tinfoil hat to try and uncover the big climate change conspiracy based upon the old adage “follow the money” there has clearly been more $ on the line from the energy sector than a group of climate scientists. But these climate change denieri diots can’t even follow the money.
Ok
ok, if you are going to do the "follow the money" thing to question the credibility of scientific analysis backing each side, then you are missing the fact that the energy industry funded "opposition" science as well as PR campaigns, thus funding the analysis against human induced climate change. It has also been proven that many of the company's own research supported human induced climate change...the proverbial smoking gun.
Regardless, I aint great at ciphering but I can make an educated guess that the economic benefit derived by the energy industry from getting the sheeple to believe it doesn't exist is thousands of times greater than the total sum of gov grants dolled out for climate research.
These threads are awesome after a long day at work. I learn so much...like the Wisconsinan ice sheet apparently extended much farther south because "glacial boulders" exist in the Atlanta area. Also, there's never a missed opportunity to throw in faith & the Bible for a science-based debate. Because that Bible, it's clearly a scientific document. Oh, and biologists, by way of their degree program, are qualified to speak on climate science (apparently, I incorrectly assumed that geologists were key here). I should go ahead and shred all three of my diplomas in favor of the TI professors' teachings. Carry on.
Still waiting to hear what policies the repubs are getting right vs the dems on global warming. Lately the coal industry has been the poster child for look how the policies are killing the industry, but anyone who knows anything about the energy sector knows that coal is never coming back for reasons beyond policy.
I see you chose not to answer the most important question in my post: What is the earth's temperature supposed to be? What exactly is mother earth's "normal" temp?
This thread claiming to know about global warming is like @tigerpride2 preaching to @Paul Strelow about recruiting.
Very serious. Actually, this is not very controversial. Many atheist philosophers will concede that if there is no God, there is no objective morality. This is in no way the same thing as saying that belief in God is required for someone to be "good". However, in the absence of God, "good" becomes subjective rather than objective.
When I have some more time I will forward some articles. Both premises you are operating on have been proven false. There is no 97% agreement that is a farce and the NASA data was shown last year to be manipulated. The actual recorded temperatures have shown VERY little warming when compared to all data. They have been selective when creating such charts as the one you showed above.
Regards,
Neal
I would suspect the worry is that an environment conducive to human life, specifically, is not billions of years old.
Okay we are getting off topic here, but really "objective" is the key word. All morality is subjective, because its based on a general social agreement.
We developed from tribal societies where there was a damn good reason to know what was right and what was wrong in terms of the tribe. Because getting kicked out meant almost certain death. Christian morality is, most likely, merely antiquated version of the social contract that we (most of us) all function under today.
“Temperatures over the planet as a whole continue the rapid warming trend we’ve seen over the last 40 years,” said NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt.
The most recent cooler-than-average year was 1976. Since then, the globe has experienced a stretch of 41 consecutive warmer-than-average years.
Cue the "fake news", I'll stick my fingers in my ears until the ocean is up to my eyeballs crowd. Glad I don't live on a Coast!
The most recent cooler-than-average year was 1976. Since then, the globe has experienced a stretch of 41 consecutive warmer-than-average years.
Cue the "fake news", I'll stick my fingers in my ears until the ocean is up to my eyeballs crowd. Glad I don't live on a Coast!
That was 14 years ago and Crichton wrote fiction across a broad array of topics. He's a fiction author, not an expert.
I do not disagree with your statement about the type of graph used by Mann hurting the argument. Data visualization is what I do and distorting scale to make your point in a more extreme manner is absolutely detrimental. It certainly doesn't mean we do not live in precarious times and shouldn't be smart and forward looking in all that we do as a species if we want life as we've known it to exist for our children's children.
In adding my 2 cents worth I believe the earth is constantly changing but there is little if anything humans can do to stop it
We are so vulnerable such as if a meteor sticks the earth tilts the axis and major global changes
So we are sitting ducks for climate change
Just get up every day and live
We are so vulnerable such as if a meteor sticks the earth tilts the axis and major global changes
So we are sitting ducks for climate change
Just get up every day and live
Hell no! It was 24 degrees this morning in Jacksonville. Burn it and keep warm dumbass.
I don't detect a lot of objective thinking going on by the "scientists say it so it MUST be true" crowd when it comes to man made global warming. Do humans impact the earth's climate? No doubt, but so do trees, earth worms and aardvarks. Every living thing on the planet does and always has.
Similar threads
