Looks like he was right...
Keep politics out of olympics
- Thread starter OrangeBaron
- Start date
Just curious, since you are so interested in getting climate change under control, assuming that man can actually control the climate, what global temperature should we aspire to - the hottest of Medieval Warm Period, the coldest of the Little Ice Age, the year of your birth, an average of the three? Which should it be? Who would get to decide such a thing?
I hope your scientific prowess is better than your spelling Einstein. Simply impressive.
I dont know. People smarter than I am should decide that. I have multiple degrees in science and know that I trust science. And I am not advocating for completely eliminating fossil fuels or going off the deep end. I know that thw earth has gone through warm periods and cool periods. But I also know science tells us that humans have accelerated the warming trend. Should it not be a goal to slow down our impact? Could we not work towards a mix of fuel sources and attempt to reduce polluting our planet? Why are we OK with allowing more pollution for the sole purpose of not harming business? Even if smog didn't contribute to global warming, it DOES, no question or discussion, increase your chances of developing asthma, COPD, and cancer. Should we not decrease our pollution to save our own population? And before you go into the whole "what about China and India" spiel, I know that that is a tough nut to crack. But being that we are supposed to be the global leader, we should lead by example. And improve the health of our own citizens.
I dont claim to know everything. There are some douchebags in this thread that do think they know everything, and it's shitheads like them that dont even allow for civil discussion and common ground.
There are some threads I try my hardest to avoid on TI... and this is one of them.
The only reason you all hate climate change is because Democrats advocate it and Republicans don't. You then try to justify that it's not man made by "facts." If a bunch of big republicans advocated it your minds would change real fast.
It's the same reason why we have the anti-vaccine movement.
Ridiculous.
The only reason you all hate climate change is because Democrats advocate it and Republicans don't. You then try to justify that it's not man made by "facts." If a bunch of big republicans advocated it your minds would change real fast.
It's the same reason why we have the anti-vaccine movement.
Ridiculous.
You don't get it do you? What is so hard to understand? Is English your second language? I will type really slow for you...the climate has always and will always change. Very simple concept.
Is this the same 97% who were telling Gore there would be no polar ice caps in 10 yrs over 15 yrs ago? I Imagine it is one and the same. All this crap is based of computer models that will tell you anything you want them to if you put in the "right" info up front.
These scientists cant tell me whether its going to be hotter or colder next week, much less what will happen decades from now.
If you are not at least skeptical, you have no brain. Go back and look at what these 97% were saying 10, 15 ,20 years ago and see how accurate that has been. Then tell how sure you are of what they are telling you.
I am not saying we should pollute the earth at will. I don't believe that at all. What I am saying is that the "science" behind these claims is at least suspect. Just from a common sense standpoint, if human pollution and cow farts are the main culprit of climate change, how in the heck do you explain temperature changes for the past million years?
Yeah there was a time when 100% of the scientists thought the world was flat, and in the 1960'same thought it was the being of a new ice age.
How many scientist that aren't getting government grants really believe we can change the weather? The founders of this movement thought the world would be completely over crowded now and unable to produce enough food to feed everyone causing famine in over half the world. So far none of what this movement has predicted has come true, it is purely a money grab for some, a religion for others, and a way to feel good for the rest.
If anyone can tell me how a planet that throughout its history has gone through periods of cooling and warming before any influence by man, then how are we going to stop it? Who are we to say that the perfect temperature for earth is when it's warmer?
There are some inconvenient truths that crowd will not acknowledge!
Follow the money.
Didn't a bunch of leading Scientist get caught lying about their numbers on Global warming a few years ago.
They want grant money and Governents want tax money. Didn't Ted Danson say the East would be u see water by year 2000....
Not buying it.
Didn't a bunch of leading Scientist get caught lying about their numbers on Global warming a few years ago.
They want grant money and Governents want tax money. Didn't Ted Danson say the East would be u see water by year 2000....
Not buying it.
Showing off that Ivy League education I see? Outstanding display of mental power. I am sure your uncle is proud.
Or that DeShaun Watson is freaking awesome said 100% of everyone!!!
Problem is the liberals think the West in general, and the USA in particular, is the problem. D
But it's ok for Brazil, (or China, Korea, countries in Africa yada yada yada) to devastate the environment because they are developing countries that suffered under the yoke of colonialism and/or imperialism. Us Western nations however......
But it's ok for Brazil, (or China, Korea, countries in Africa yada yada yada) to devastate the environment because they are developing countries that suffered under the yoke of colonialism and/or imperialism. Us Western nations however......
One of the most mendacious stats ever published. Know how that stat got "calculated?" You should look that up. Some dude literally counted published articles rather than polling every scientist in the world, as the proponents of this stat falsely lead people to believe.
A perfect fusion of tautalogy (look! 97% of all published articles believe anthropologic global warming; oh noes! to publish on global warming you'd better express belief in athropologic global warming) and appeal to authority by people who think they are smarter than everyone else.
Follow this link. The "97%" are the ones who "believe" with religious fervor (or with practical concern for putting food on their table...sure I'll write "global warming yada yada yada" so I can get a job and feed my family) in the graph that didn't actually happen vs those who lean towards actual measured reality.
When did science become political? Science is science. Pure and simple.
Can't agree more. Alas, it's not worth arguing. When it boils down to specifics, you'll find people will disagree with even the most basic components of climate science, like how old the Earth is. At that point, it literally becomes a "agree to disagree".
You're right, he did. Actually, a group of people did, not just one person. And it was repeated with two other research groups. You can't poll every scientist in the world. But, if you want something close to that, look at Pew Research samples across different people of varying levels of education. Once you get to people with at least a masters degree who specifically study earth science, they reported 90%. Anyone would love to find hard evidence, contrary to ACG, to explain every anomaly. They would be famous.
The shape and orbit of the earth are settled, proven scientific facts. Climate change, so far, has yet to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. So, your deflection attempt has ended in failure. Nice try, though.
Last edited:
Actually, climate change is a proven entity. The only question is: Why is it changing so rapidly? Does man play a part? But, have no doubt, the climate is changing and changing faster than at any time in history.
Multiple global warming expeditions have been called off due to too much ice this year. Source? Search it.
97% do not agree on anything with this regard.....especially with the skewed numbers that were used purposefully.
The fact is with the solar inactivity that a mini ice age is imminent. Source? NASA.
Just because you scream your stance and say it as often as you can doesn't mean it's right. It means you're a Liberal that listens to the Liberal media that uses the same tactics.
Go scream at the fvcking Chinese. They'll just kill you.
God forbid a liberal believes this......I mean the earths climate has been changing for millions of year's before we as a species even showed up. 97% of "scientists" agree that they like being on the band wagon and getting federal handouts to do "studies". Which by the way are the same 97% scientists that agree with the self proclaimed "expert" that came up with the study that gave us the "hockey stick" graph.
Clemson education. Still betting yours is somewhere like Southern Wesleyan or Newberry....if you have a degree.
Guess you have been paying attention then, science has been political since the 60's to justify any and everyone's ideas and stance. Science has sadly become like journalism, tainted. Everyone has their hands out and are willing to give you the "results" desired for the right price.
I can say that this is the first time in as long as I can remember that I even thought about climate change, really couldn't care less because it's mostly motivated by partisan politics but didn't realize there would be so much vitriol from both sides over the subject.
@ArmchairTiger , playing devil's advocate in response to your post, is your issue just that the alternate energy "solutions" aren't cost effective or that they're essentially non-existent as "solutions" (aside from nuclear energy)? Assuming that those costs can be lessened, do you think solar, wind, hydro power + battery-powered cars are avenues that can help reduce emissions? I'm also curious what about battery-powered cars you consider to be a joke, you didn't explain your issues with each.
Aside from that and the climate change debate, is there any positive to gaining some energy independence? Is the issue with taxing carbon emissions, climate change as a theory or the high costs of alternate energy? All of the above?
You have to understand that our generation is on the leading edge of alternative energy sources. No matter what, one day there will no oil or coal left. And that is a fact. There is not an infinite amount of coal or oil on this planet. It is up to us to begin to develop the new technology.
I think you may have misunderstood my post.
I was asking for his reason for laughing off solar, wind & hydro energy along with battery-powered cars and whether it is just a matter of cost-effectiveness like he referred to or some other factor. He didn't explain so I was asking for it including whether HE thought there are any positives, I'm not saying I don't think there aren't.
